add_coverage_flag

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: it adds a boolean column, idempotency, auto-recalculation, and return value ('Returns how many members have data vs are dead'). It stops short of mentioning prerequisites like existing relationships or permissions, but the core side effects are well described.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with context, then action, then usage, then properties. Every sentence contributes unique value with zero redundancy.

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?

The description explains what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, and important properties (idempotent, auto-recalcs). It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites such as an existing relationship between the dimension and fact table, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 75% (3 of 4 params have descriptions). The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing the distinction between fact table and dimension. The missing sessionId description is not compensated for, but the schema itself is already descriptive, so a baseline 3 is 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Adds') and resource ('boolean calculated column to a dimension'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by positioning it as 'the partner to audit_robustness' and 'Close the loop on blank-on-select'.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to prevent blank-on-select by flagging dead dimension members) and references a related sibling (audit_robustness). It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the practical usage example ('Filter slicers or add a report-level filter') makes the trigger scenario evident.

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