Define custom sensitive patterns for a project to control which data the ADR analysis flags or ignores.
Configure custom sensitive patterns for a project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPath | Yes | Path to the project directory | |
| existingPatterns | No | Existing patterns to consider |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not say whether existing patterns are replaced, merged, or supplemented, nor what side effects configuring patterns may have on the project. 'Configure' is vague about the actual mutation behavior.
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 sentence with no wasted words and the main subject is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a tool with only two parameters, though it is so brief that it leaves behavioral details unstated.
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 mutates project configuration and has related sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks any indication of whether existing patterns are overwritten, how the configuration is applied, what the return behavior is, or what prerequisites exist. For a configuration tool, an agent needs more than 'Configure custom sensitive patterns for a project' to invoke it confidently.
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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (90-100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds almost no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely reinforces that the tool relates to 'sensitive patterns', while the parameter names and schema descriptions carry the actual semantics.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Configure custom sensitive patterns') and scopes it to a project, which makes the core function clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling 'configure_output_masking', so it falls short of a perfect score.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus related tools like configure_output_masking, generate_content_masking, or apply_basic_content_masking. There are no stated conditions, contexts, or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.