redact

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses behavior of each action (redact, mask, hash, warn), states that violations summary never contains raw values, and notes that under 'warn' the sanitized_text holds original text. This adds significant context.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: opening sentence states purpose, then a paragraph clarifying differences from 'scan' and action details, followed by entities usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool has three parameters (one required), an output schema exists, and the description covers key behavioral aspects and parameter usage, it is fairly complete. Minor gaps: no mention of output fields or error handling for disabled entity types, but overall sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing the 'action' parameter (including four options and default), the 'entities' parameter (subset of types), and implying the 'text' parameter's role. This adds comprehensive meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool detects PII in text and anonymizes matches. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'scan' by noting that with 'redact' you pick the action per call, and it lists specific actions. This provides a specific verb-resource pair with clear differentiation.

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 explicitly contrasts with 'scan' to guide usage, and explains when to use the 'entities' parameter for subset selection. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions beyond the scan comparison.

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