Resolve which rights propagate during data transformation by specifying the transform class and optional source default propagation. Get clear propagation outcomes for compliance and policy decisions.
Resolve what rights propagate when data is transformed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transformClass | Yes | ||
| sourceDefaultPropagation | No | Source-defined default: inherit_full, compensation_only, etc. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether the operation is read-only or mutating, what 'resolve' returns, or whether any side effects or permissions are involved. For a governance-related tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.
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 a single concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition, earning every word.
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 implied by sibling governance tools, the lack of annotations, and the absence of an output schema, this description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, edge cases, or the meaning of 'propagate' in this context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.
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 description adds no meaning to the parameters. The schema provides a description for sourceDefaultPropagation but not transformClass, and the tool description doesn't mention either parameter or how they relate to the transformation. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.
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 uses a specific verb 'Resolve' and identifies the resource as 'rights propagation when data is transformed', making the core purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like resolve_lineage or compute_governance_taint, but the focus on rights propagation during transformation is distinctive enough.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no scenarios or exclusions. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.