mark_false_positive

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses two behaviors the structured fields do not: the plaintext value is permanently excluded from all future sanitize_text calls in this session, and the call returns the restored original plaintext plus the ignore-list size. This is meaningful side-effect and return-value disclosure not present in readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the persistent effect, then the return values. Every sentence carries information the agent needs and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains both return values, and it explains the session-scoped side effect. It stops short of covering failure behavior (e.g., an unknown or already-marked token) and how session_id interacts with the stated scope, which is a minor but real gap for a state-mutating tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both 'token' and 'session_id'. The description adds only the session-scoping effect of a marked token, not parameter-level format or constraints, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Marks a previously detected token as a false positive') and implies the relationship to sanitize_text by saying the value is excluded from future sanitize_text calls. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like reveal_text or sanitize_file, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'previously detected token' tells the agent this applies to tokens produced by an earlier detection pass, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use case, and no comparison to alternatives such as reveal_text or guard_session_reset. An agent can infer the context but is not guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.