phantomswap_mask_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that values are swapped with fake placeholders, but does not disclose whether the session stores the mapping, whether masking is reversible, what side effects occur, or what the output represents. This is minimal transparency for a stateful-looking operation.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler, which is positive. However, it is under-specified for a tool with two required parameters and a session-based workflow, so the conciseness is not fully 'appropriate' to the tool's needs.

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 definition lacks key context about sessions, session lifecycle, availability of an inverse operation, and any constraints around masking text. An output schema exists but cannot compensate for missing usage semantics. Overall, the description is too sparse for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description only implicitly explains 'text' while leaving 'session_name_or_id' completely unexplained. The agent cannot infer how to choose or specify a session, what the session is used for, or what format the identifiers take.

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 states a specific action ('Mask sensitive information in text') and a clear resource ('text'), with the method 'swapping real values with fake placeholders'. It implies differentiation from siblings like phantomswap_mask_directory by targeting text, but does not explicitly name alternatives or distinguish them.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as phantomswap_unmask_text, phantomswap_mask_directory, or session-related tools. The description does not mention prerequisites like having a session, which seems important given the required session_name_or_id parameter.

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