whodb_platform_change_impact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description adds that it "does not execute any change" and describes its output shape ("directly connected resources and recommended reads") plus that workspace targeting is per-call and does not change defaults. That is genuine context beyond the annotation set.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then how to call it, then usage/return behavior. No filler, though the workspace sentence is slightly dense with brace notation.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden and does state what is returned and that no change is executed. It covers usage timing and targeting adequately; minor gaps remain around pagination or result limits, but nothing critical for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters, including action examples and the workspace object. The description reinforces the core resource/id/action triple and the workspace non-persistence behavior but adds little that the schema lacks, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Analyze direct graph impact") and scopes it to "directly connected resources." An agent can tell it is an impact-analysis read, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent siblings like whodb_platform_deletion_impact or whodb_platform_ontology_reference_impact.

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?

Gives clear timing guidance: "pass resource, id, and optional action before update, delete, deploy, run, move, or promotion work." This tells the agent when to reach for it, but names no alternative tools or exclusion conditions.

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