what_if_leaves

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discharges it well: it discloses the execution mechanism (GRAPH.COPY fork, before/after diff) and the safety guarantee that the live graph is untouched. That is exactly the kind of side-effect and isolation information an agent needs before invoking an analysis tool, beyond what any structured field provides.

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, zero filler, with the question the tool answers front-loaded ahead of the implementation detail and the usage trigger. Nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, safety, and usage trigger well. It stops short of indicating the shape of the result (ranked list of modules? fragility scores?) and leaves the tenant parameter unexplained, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 there are two parameters. The description only alludes to the required 'person' parameter ('if this person left') without stating accepted format (name, ID, email), and the 'tenant' parameter is never mentioned at all. With no schema-level documentation or enums to lean on, this is a real 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?

The description names a specific operation (counterfactual removal simulation) and a concrete output (which modules become orphaned or fragile), which is distinct from siblings like module_risk or keystones that measure current-state risk rather than a hypothetical departure. An agent can differentiate this from the rest of the toolset without opening any schema.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use for "what if X leaves/quits/goes on leave"', which is a clear usage cue. However, it never names an alternative tool (e.g. module_risk or keystones) or states when a static risk tool would be preferable to this simulation, so the routing is helpful but not complete.

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