Convert detected sensitive content into actionable masking instructions. Choose a strategy—full, partial, placeholder, or environment—to redact and protect data.
Generate masking instructions for detected sensitive content
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | Content to mask | |
| detectedItems | Yes | Detected sensitive items to mask | |
| maskingStrategy | No | Strategy for masking content | full |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose side effects, whether the tool modifies data, or what output format to expect. The annotations indicate readOnlyHint: false and destructiveHint: false, but the description itself is silent on these aspects. An agent cannot infer whether the tool returns instructions, applies them, or triggers side effects.
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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the primary action. No redundant filler or verbose language is present, which is ideal for a tool definition.
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?
The description lacks essential context such as expected output format, dependencies on other tools, or whether this is part of a larger masking workflow. Without this, an agent may struggle to integrate the tool correctly, especially given the large number of sibling tools with overlapping functionality.
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 schema covers all three parameters (content, detectedItems, maskingStrategy) with descriptive names and short descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. However, the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter names and descriptions. The 'maskingStrategy' enum is self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify how the strategy affects the output.
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 states a clear verb ('Generate') and resource ('masking instructions for detected sensitive content'), but it is vague about what constitutes 'masking instructions' and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'apply_basic_content_masking' or 'configure_output_masking'. An agent may be uncertain about the exact purpose without deeper context.
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. The description mentions 'detected sensitive content' but does not clarify whether this tool is for generating instructions only, or if it also applies the masking. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to prefer sibling masking tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.