whodb_platform_transform_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond the tags: the operation is non-persisting and output is truncated by the MCP --max-rows setting, which is a material behavioral limit an agent must plan around.

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 core action and its non-persistence, then the validation guidance, then the edge details. The workspace sentence is mildly redundant with the schema but earns its place by stressing per-call-only targeting.

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 preview tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing to alternatives, row capping and workspace targeting. It does not describe failure behavior for a malformed graph, a minor omission.

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 graph_json, fields and the nested workspace object. The description's workspace {host, org, project} mention largely restates the schema and adds no syntax or format detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource — run a transform graph — plus the key distinguishing trait that nothing is persisted and rows are returned. An agent can immediately tell this apart from the mutating siblings whodb_platform_create and whodb_platform_action.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as a validation step to run before whodb_platform_create transform or whodb_platform_action run, naming both alternatives and the condition that selects this one. The agent does not have to infer when to reach for it.

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