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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the erased mapping is 'in-memory' (i.e., ephemeral/non-persistent) and that the operation is destructive in nature. It does not state failure behavior (e.g., whether forgetting a non-existent session errors), idempotency, or permissions, so disclosure is partial.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the operation is front-loaded. It is terse rather than bloated, though the terseness trades away clarity.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers the effect and timing but omits what session_id means and any error/idempotency behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

There is one parameter, session_id, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only place semantics could be added — yet it never mentions session_id or what value identifies the mapping. The word 'one' faintly implies a selector, but format and expectations are left entirely to the agent.

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 verb (Erase) and a resource (one in-memory placeholder mapping), and ties it to the restore flow. However, the key noun 'placeholder mapping' is never explained, and it is not clear how it relates to the tool's own name 'session' or to sibling tools like restore_file, so the purpose is only partially pinned down.

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 phrase 'after the restored file is created' gives an implicit timing condition for when to call it, which is useful sequencing guidance. But no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are stated, and sibling tools are never named, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important caveat that detection is partial and human review is required — genuinely useful behavioral context. But it says nothing about permissions, overwrite behavior, side effects on the source file, or whether the operation is reversible. Only the quality caveat is covered.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, caution frontloaded after the core purpose. Efficiently sized for the information it conveys.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the parameters and most behavioral characteristics undocumented. The partial-detection caveat is useful but insufficient.

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% — none of the four parameters have descriptions. The tool's description mentions no parameters at all: not source_path, output_path, rules_path, or overwrite. With low coverage the description must compensate, and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb (mask) and target resources (local TXT/MD/DOCX/PDF → plain text). However, 'mask' is ambiguous — it could mean redact sensitive data, obfuscate, or format-convert — and the description never clarifies which. It also doesn't distinguish from sibling scan_file or restore_file.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The hint about partial detection is a caution, not usage guidance. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this belongs before or after scan_file, or how it relates to restore_file.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: it never returns the restored clear text, a security-relevant guarantee. However, it says nothing about permission requirements, whether overwrite is destructive to an existing file, or what happens if the session is invalid.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the negative constraint. Nothing is wasted, though the sentence is arguably too terse given the surrounding gaps.

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?

The presence of an output schema lowers the burden on return-value explanation, but the tool still leaves essential gaps: a prerequisite session_id is undocumented, overwrite semantics on an existing file are unstated, and three of four parameters have zero coverage. For a mutating file tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 all four parameters (masked_path, session_id, overwrite, output_path) are undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'local output file' loosely hints at output_path and the non-return of clear text implies the result is file-bound, but masked_path, session_id, and overwrite remain entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (restore) and resource (placeholders into a local output file), which clearly separates it from mask_file and scan_file in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly naming how it relates to those siblings, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that a prior mask_file run and matching session_id are required). Usage is only inferable from the sibling set, which is weak routing information for a four-tool family.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose one genuinely useful trait — that raw values are not returned — plus that extraction warnings are reported. However it is silent on whether source files are modified, what permissions are needed, whether any session state is created (relevant given forget_session exists), and how the warnings surface.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and the formats, with the no-raw-values constraint placed prominently. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers formats and warning reporting. But with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation, the definition leaves the role of rules_path and this tool's place in the scan/mask/restore pipeline unstated.

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% for two parameters: source_path and rules_path. The description clarifies source_path only indirectly via the format list, and never mentions rules_path at all, leaving the purpose and expected content of the rules file entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (scan) plus the resource and its accepted formats (local TXT, Markdown, DOCX, text PDF), and adds a distinguishing constraint (no raw values returned). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names or contrasts with the sibling tools mask_file/restore_file.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose scan_file over mask_file or restore_file, nor any stated prerequisite or workflow position (e.g. scan before masking). Usage can only be inferred from the verb.

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