Analyze Impact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'Requires a lineage cache — will fetch all workspace nodes with detail=true on first call.' This goes beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with an args section and clear bullet-like separation. Each sentence is concise and informative, with no wasted words.

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 complexity of impact analysis, the description thoroughly covers what the tool does, its parameters, return values (impacted counts, nodes grouped by depth, critical path), and behavioral notes (caching). The presence of an output schema does not detract from the completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value by explaining the semantic difference between omitting columnID (analyzes impact of entire node) and providing it (only nodes/columns depending on that column). This goes beyond the schema's short descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze the downstream impact of changing a node or a specific column.' It distinguishes between analyzing the whole node vs a specific column, which differentiates it from siblings like get_downstream_nodes.

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?

The description provides clear context: analyze downstream impact before modifying a node. It explains the difference between using columnID or not. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like get_downstream_nodes.

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