configure_custom_patterns

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'configure,' implying a mutation, but does not detail whether it overwrites or merges patterns, requires authentication, or has side effects. Critical transparency is missing.

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 sentence, making it concise. However, it could be more informative without increasing length significantly. It does not waste words but also does not fully leverage conciseness to pack value.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain return values, whether the configuration persists, or if existing patterns are replaced. For a configuration tool, more context is needed to be complete.

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%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds context by mentioning 'sensitive patterns,' which hints at the type of patterns, but does not explain how projectPath and existingPatterns are used during configuration. This is adequate but not enhanced.

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 'Configure custom sensitive patterns for a project' uses a specific verb ('configure') and resource ('custom sensitive patterns'), indicating a setup action. It is not a tautology and generally conveys the tool's purpose, though it could better distinguish from sibling tools like configure_output_masking.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., apply_basic_content_masking, configure_output_masking). The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it.

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