Recursively anonymizes PII in JSON structures to enable safe staging, testing, and Cloud LLM processing without exposing sensitive data.
Recursively scans and anonymizes all PII in a JSON data structure for safe staging or testing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | JSON object or dictionary |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet 'anonymizes' is left undefined: it does not say whether values are replaced, hashed, or removed, whether the operation is reversible (notable given the scrub_unmask_text sibling), or whether the input is mutated or a copy returned. Recursion is mentioned, but the privacy-critical semantics of the mutation are not.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and scope lead. It is efficient, though arguably it is under-specified rather than concise given how much behavior is left implicit.
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 privacy-sensitive recursive transformation with nested objects, zero annotations, and no output schema, the definition is too thin: it omits what anonymization produces, return format, reversibility, and mutation behavior, leaving an agent unable to predict the outcome of the call.
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 single 'data' parameter is already fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds only that PII is scanned within it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no format or structure detail.
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 specific verb (anonymizes), resource (PII in a JSON data structure), and scope (recursively, all PII). It is clearly distinguishable from the text-oriented siblings by naming JSON as the target, though it never explicitly names an alternative.
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 only usage signal is the trailing phrase 'for safe staging or testing,' which hints at intent but gives no when-to-use versus scrub_mask_text or scrub_audit_risk, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.