Prepare a verified remediation

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

The description explicitly states that the tool mutates nothing (aligned with readOnlyHint=true), waits for a human gate, and runs fail-closed verification. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, such as waiting behavior and the fact that it blocks on nothing external.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load key actions and return values, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds essential information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers return values, behavioral traits (non-mutation, waiting for gate, fail-closed), and required inputs. It provides a complete picture for a complex tool with 6 parameters.

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%, so parameters are well-defined in the schema. The description adds minor guidance (e.g., 'resolve the URN first') but does not significantly expand on parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it resolves DataHub evidence, generates a dbt compatibility patch, runs verification, and returns specific outputs (run id, risk score, verification tier, checks). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing a unique preparation step that blocks on a human gate.

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 implicitly sets context as the preparation step for schema-drift incidents, with no explicit when-not or alternatives. However, it clearly indicates the tool's role in the workflow, and sibling tools like praxis_approve_remediation are naturally distinct. A slight lack of explicit guidance keeps it from a 5.

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