set_lineage_tag

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It usefully discloses the compatibility-level side effect ('auto-bumped, reported back') and explains the tag's persistence across renames/merges. It does not mention overwrite behavior, permissions, or reversibility, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose, then cover parameter relationship and compatibility side effect. No filler; every sentence adds information.

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 covers the key operational nuances: object types, the conditional table requirement, and the auto-bump/reporting of compatibility level. It doesn't describe the return value or error scenarios, but for a targeted setter tool this is mostly adequate.

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 80%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds context about LineageTag semantics and the compatibility-level requirement, but the parameter-level guidance (objectType values, when to pass table) largely repeats the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('Set the LineageTag') and the target ('on a model object'), and defines what a LineageTag is ('stable identity that survives schema sync / git merge across renames'). The object types are enumerated, so an agent can distinguish this from related tag tools.

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?

Gives explicit context for when to use: setting LineageTag on model objects, including the conditional rule 'pass the object's table for column/measure/hierarchy/partition.' It does not name an alternative or state when not to use, so it misses explicit exclusions, but the selection context is clear.

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