whodb_platform_source_constraints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so restating 'This tool is read-only' is redundant. The genuinely additive part is the workspace targeting note ('for per-call targeting without changing defaults'), which clarifies that the override is ephemeral versus the session default.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage and scoping notes. No filler, though the read-only statement is somewhat wasted given the annotations.

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 tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the essentials are present. It still leaves open what the 'constraints' result contains and how it differs from source_fields/source_columns, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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 ref (kind:path format), source, fields and workspace nested fields. The description only restates the source/ref usage and adds no format or semantic detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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 (Describe) and resource (editable field constraints for one hosted source object), which is more precise than the generic sibling names like source_fields or source_columns. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself against those close siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from the word 'constraints' alone.

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 tells the agent how to call it ('Use a source name or id and an object ref such as table:public.users'), which implies the required context. But it offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names the sibling tools (e.g. source_fields, source_columns, source_objects) that overlap in scope.

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