COA Refresh

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

The description explicitly states 'DESTRUCTIVE: modifies warehouse data' and the need for confirmed=true, which adds behavioral insight beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true). It also warns about forceIgnoreEnvironmentStatus potentially causing failures, providing valuable behavioral context.

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 fairly concise but includes a parameter list that largely duplicates the schema. It is well-structured with clear sections (description, destructive note, args, returns), though the args section could be trimmed for even better conciseness.

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 covers the tool's destructive nature, required confirmation, and the return structure. Given the output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values further. It could elaborate more on how include/exclude node selectors work, but overall it's adequate.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description repeats the parameter list but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's own 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: 'Run DML for selected nodes in a deployed environment.' It specifies that it operates purely on the cloud environment and does not require a local project, distinguishing it from other tools that may need local 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?

The description provides usage context, noting that it requires confirmed=true and is destructive. It also mentions that it doesn't require a local project. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like coa_run or coa_deploy, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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