whodb_platform_deletion_impact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the non-mutating nature is covered structurally. The description adds real value in noting the workspace block is per-call targeting that leaves defaults unchanged, but it does not say what the inspection actually surfaces (dependents lists, blocking conditions, scoping of results).

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the purpose stated first and the parameter nuance second. Nothing needs trimming and nothing is buried.

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 read-only inspection tool with full annotation coverage, no output schema, and fully documented parameters, the description is nearly sufficient — it conveys the intent and the targeting model. The gap is that with no output schema present, the description could briefly characterize what the inspection returns (e.g. blocking dependents vs. advisory references) to help the agent interpret results.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all five parameters including the nested workspace object's host/org/project semantics and the session-default cascade. The description's contribution is limited to reinforcing that workspace targeting is scoped to a single call, which the schema already states for the host field — a 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 ('Inspect') and a specific resource set ('hosted dependents, references, and shared resources'), plus the temporal context ('before deletion'). It is distinguishable from neighbors like whodb_platform_delete or whodb_platform_restore, though it never names the adjacent read-only impact siblings (change_impact, ontology_reference_impact, share_dependents) that an agent might confuse it with.

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 phrase 'before deletion' implies the usage context — a pre-flight check prior to a destructive call — which is genuinely useful guidance. But it gives no explicit when-not, no prerequisites, and no pointer to the alternative impact/reference tools, so the agent must infer routing.

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