deanonymize_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses drift verification, all-or-nothing restoration, mismatch listing, that the mapping file is intentionally left on disk, backup behavior including backup=False semantics, atomic validated save, and refusal for Word-open documents. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 dense sentences convey the core action, the safety mechanism, the post-restore file state, backup behavior, save guarantees, and a hard refusal condition. There is no filler; every clause adds operational value.

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?

Given the operation's risk profile—restoring anonymization changes—the description covers failure modes, side effects, persistence of the mapping file, backup rotation, atomicity, and an open-document constraint. Output schema exists to cover return values, so nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for mapping_path ('default <name>.anonymization.json beside the document') and backup ('backup=False skips rotation only'). file_path is not explicitly elaborated, but the document-centric context and 'beside the document' phrasing make its role sufficiently clear.

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 opens with 'Reverse anonymize_for_review using its mapping file', naming the exact verb, resource, and the sibling operation it undoes. It clearly distinguishes this tool from every other document tool in the sibling list.

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?

The description positions the tool as the direct inverse of anonymize_for_review and gives the default mapping file location, making the intended context clear. It does not explicitly list 'do not use when X applies', but the paired-operation framing plus the refusal conditions ('Refuses documents open in Word') provide strong usage guidance.

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