Protect data (encrypt / tokenize / anonymize)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the technique is server-configured and that results are joined to originals. This provides useful context beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail error handling or reversibility.

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 two sentences: first states the action, second provides crucial context and best practice. No wasted words, all sentences earn their place.

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 complexity of data protection, the schema coverage is high, and annotations are present. The description adds important context about server-configuration and best practice (early protection). However, it lacks specifics on return format or error handling, but overall sufficient for a tool with good schema and no output schema.

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 100% and includes clear descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds that the exact technique is server-configured per (className, propertyName) and that the return joins protected to original values, which adds value beyond the schema.

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 name and title explicitly state 'protect' and 'encrypt/tokenize/anonymize'. The description clearly says 'Protect one or more field values for a given role' and distinguishes the technique as server-configured per class/property. This provides a specific verb and resource, and the sibling 'unprotect' clearly contrasts.

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?

Implies usage for early protection and for a given role, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives (e.g., when to use transform vs protect). The guidance is limited to 'as early as possible' without detailing when protection is appropriate or not.

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