phantomswap_unmask_text

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core transformation but omits any context about session dependence, side effects, permissions, or error behavior, which is significant for a tool requiring a session_name_or_id.

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 clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. While it is too terse to fully inform the agent, its structure efficiently communicates the primary action and resource.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context about session usage, placeholder semantics, and its relationship to sibling mask tools. With two required parameters and no annotations, an agent cannot confidently determine prerequisites or expected behavior.

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 does not compensate. The 'text' parameter is only implied by the verb, and 'session_name_or_id' is completely unexplained, leaving the agent without a clear understanding of how the session relates to unmasking.

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 verb 'Unmask' applied to the resource 'text', with the mechanism 'restoring fake placeholders back to original real values'. It distinguishes itself from siblings such as unmask_directory by the explicit 'text' resource and from mask_text by the inversion of the operation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like mask_text or unmask_directory. No conditions, exclusions, or related-tool routing are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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