resolve_rights_propagationDetermine which data rights carry forward after a transformation by applying the transform class and source default propagation rules.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not explain what 'resolving' entails, whether it is a pure computation or a stored decision, or how source defaults interact with the transform class.
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?
It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication; nothing is given beyond a restatement of the title.
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 two-parameter governance computation tool with no output schema, a required parameter that is completely undocumented, and no indication of what a 'resolution' result looks like, the description leaves an agent unable to invoke the tool correctly. Annotations cover only the safety profile.
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 50%: sourceDefaultPropagation has a description listing example values, but the required transformClass parameter has no description and no enum. The description text does not compensate at all — it never mentions transform classes, default propagation values, or the relationship between the two inputs.
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 gives a verb (resolve) and a resource (rights propagation during transformation), so the general domain is clear. However, 'resolve' is ambiguous — it could mean a lookup, a computation, or a policy determination — and nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as resolve_authority, resolve_lineage, resolve_path_terms, or compute_governance_taint.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no named alternative. An agent cannot tell from this sentence when rights-propagation resolution is required versus calling check_usage_permitted or compute_governance_taint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.