Unprotect data (reveal — SENSITIVE)

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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns cleartext sensitive data, warns against logging, and notes role-dependent output (masked or protected value). Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and open world, so the description fills gaps.

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 with two sentences plus a warning emoji. Every sentence adds value: define the action, sensitivity warning, usage restriction, and role-dependent output. No unnecessary text.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and security implications but omits details on 'evidences' and 'loggingAttributes' parameters and does not describe the return structure. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 50% with descriptions for 'role' and 'fields'. The description does not add extra meaning for parameters; 'evidences' and 'loggingAttributes' are undocumented beyond the schema. The tool description focuses on overall behavior rather than parameter details.

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 reverses protection to recover the original value, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'protect'. It specifies the action, resource, and role requirement.

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 provides clear context on when to use (recover protected data) and warns about sensitivity and authorization. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling 'protect' implies the opposite operation.

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