encrypt

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

With no annotations, the description explains that metadata stays visible, only text is encrypted, and a key_id is returned. It does not cover error conditions or auth details, but provides sufficient behavioral context for a simple tool.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and structured with an 'Args' section. Every sentence adds information 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 one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description explains input and outcome comprehensively. It covers encryption behavior, metadata visibility, and key usage, making it complete for its complexity.

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?

The schema has no description for the 'ref' parameter (0% coverage). The description adds valuable semantics: it accepts a ref string like 'run_id/agent_id' or a JSON object with a 'ref' field, clarifying the input format.

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 encrypts a ref's text payload and explains the effect (returns ref with key_id, only callers with key can decrypt). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'decrypt' by implication.

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 implies use for confidentiality of text content and mentions key-based access, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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