mark_removed_children

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool stamps an annotation and merges into an existing list, but does not mention persistence, permission requirements, side effects, or what happens if the annotation already exists (beyond merging). It's a mutation, but no mention of reversibility or response. Enough for basic understanding but gaps remain.

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, no fluff. The first sentence delivers the core action and purpose; the second focuses on the key parameter. Front-loaded with the verb 'Stamp' and immediately contextualized.

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 low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and main parameter but omits explanation of sessionId and any error/edge-case behavior (e.g., what if table doesn't exist). It's adequate for basic invocation but not fully comprehensive given no annotations.

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 describes table and removedSourceLineageTags but not sessionId (67% coverage). Description adds meaning for removedSourceLineageTags (source lineage tags, comma-separated, merge behavior) but doesn't explain sessionId or enhance the table parameter beyond schema. Since coverage isn't high, description only partially compensates.

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 begins with a specific verb 'Stamp' and clearly identifies the resource (model/table annotation PBI_RemovedChildren) and its purpose (prevent deleted tables/columns from reappearing on refresh). It distinguishes from siblings by naming a specific annotation and explaining the schema-sync context, which is not present in sibling tool names like set_annotation or set_lineage_tag.

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 clearly states when to use (after deleting tables/columns that need to stay deleted across schema syncs) and why (otherwise they reappear). It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclude other tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide. No explicit when-not-to-use, so slight deduction.

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