impact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool removes a node for impact analysis, implying a destructive or simulation operation, but doesn't disclose whether this is a real removal, simulation, permission requirements, rate limits, or output format. The phrase 'blast radius' suggests destructive impact but lacks clarity on actual behavior.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'disconnects' means in the output, whether this is a simulation or actual change, error conditions, or how results are presented. Given the complexity implied by 'blast radius' analysis, more context is needed.

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 both parameters ('source' and 'node'). The description implies these parameters are used for impact analysis but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 tool performs impact analysis by removing a node to see what disconnects. It specifies the verb ('remove a node and see what disconnects') and resource ('node'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'analyze_system' or 'trace' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_system' or 'trace'. It mentions the action but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or comparative context with sibling tools.

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