redact_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states that it redacts text throughout the document and returns a count, but it does not explicitly confirm that the modification is permanent or irreversible. The behavioral traits are partially 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?

The description is extremely concise with a single-purpose header line followed by a structured list of Args and Returns. 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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and return value. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools, which is a minor gap.

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 add meaning. It does so effectively by explaining each parameter: pattern (text or regex to find), replacement (default [REDACTED]), and use_regex (whether to use regex). This provides clear context beyond the schema's type and default.

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 action (redact), the target (text matching pattern), and the scope (throughout the document). It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_and_replace by using the specific term 'redact', implying masking/hiding of sensitive information rather than standard find/replace.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_and_replace or batch_replace. It implies the use case (redaction) but lacks explicit when-not or alternative recommendations.

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