privacy_redact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the available output styles, but not whether the operation is a pure transformation returning new text, whether the original is mutated, whether redaction is reversible, or whether it can fail on unsupported input. Useful but incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the core action leads, the usage trigger follows, and the style enumeration closes compactly. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a low-complexity two-parameter utility with an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description covers purpose, usage context, and style options. The remaining gaps about mutation/reversibility are minor given the tool's simplicity, though the absence of annotations means more disclosure would help.

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 0% and the style parameter has no enum, so the description's list 'placeholder, masked, asterisk, category, hash, remove' does add the set of valid values. However, it never ties the list to the 'style' parameter by name and explains none of the styles' semantics, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

'Remove sensitive values from text' states a specific verb and resource, and it is clearly distinct from the sibling scan/detect tools (privacy_preflight, privacy_scan_code, privacy_check_trace) because it performs the redaction rather than the detection. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the action framing differentiates it well enough.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger context: 'Use before writing something to a log, an issue, a commit message, or any other place a secret should not end up.' That tells the agent when to reach for it, but it never states when NOT to use it or which sibling to use instead (e.g. when to scan rather than redact).

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