guard_column

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this creates a persistent assertion ('permanent guarantee for everyone downstream'), which is meaningful. However, it omits important details like whether the assertion is idempotent, what happens if the assertion already exists, or any required permissions. This is a moderate disclosure but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the core action. The second sentence adds motivational context but is somewhat verbose. Overall, it is concise and well-structured, though the second sentence could be trimmed without losing essential meaning.

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 tool with three required parameters, no annotations, and zero schema parameter descriptions, the description gives a clear purpose and usage cue but lacks detail on parameter semantics and potential side effects. The presence of an output schema may cover return values, but the overall description leaves gaps that could confuse an agent on how to correctly invoke the tool with all 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?

The input schema has zero description coverage for its three required parameters. The description only indirectly explains 'column' ('watching a column') but does not clarify 'dataset_urn' or 'why'. Since the schema provides no help, the description fails to compensate for these undocumented parameters, leaving their semantics ambiguous.

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 action: 'Leave an assertion watching a column' with a specific verb and resource. It also conveys the intended effect ('so this break cannot recur silently'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_incident or remember_incident that focus on incident lifecycle, not preventive column guards.

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 explicitly says 'Call this after a fix,' providing clear timing context. It explains the purpose—'turns one repaired incident into a permanent guarantee'—which implies it is the follow-up to a resolution. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the sibling list.

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