declare_changed_property

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool marks a property as locally changed, explains the effect (prevents refresh from resetting source-owned properties), and specifies applicable object types. It does not mention reversibility or permissions, but the core behavioral trait is clearly conveyed.

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 two sentences and carries substantial information without fluff. The first sentence front-loads the purpose; the second adds necessary detail about objectType and table. The punctuation is slightly heavy but the content is dense and relevant.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, why it's needed, when to use it, and how parameters relate. It lacks an explicit example call or mention of sessionId, but the provided context is largely sufficient 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 coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the objectType enum values, clarifying that table is needed only for certain object types, and giving concrete property examples (Name, IsHidden, FormatString, SummarizeBy). This supplements the schema descriptions effectively.

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 precise verb-resource pair ('Mark a property as locally CHANGED') and clearly states the tool's purpose: preventing schema sync from wiping overrides on composite/Direct Lake objects. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining the unique scenario (name, isHidden, formatString, etc. being source-owned and reset on refresh).

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: when you need to protect a property override on a composite/Direct Lake object from being reset by schema sync. It also gives usage guidance for objectType and table ('pass the object's table where needed'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or negative conditions.

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