deploy_contract_dq_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that it creates/updates a CDE files resource and Airflow job, checks live table data, avoids WAP/staging, and supports force_recreate for deletion. It lacks details on failure modes or idempotency, but covers the key behavioral traits for a deployment 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?

The description is well-structured with a concise summary followed by an Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the layout makes it easy to scan for purpose, behavior, and parameters.

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 complex tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers all parameter semantics, key side effects, and even special behavior like no WAP branch. Since an output schema exists, not explaining return values is acceptable.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the Args section in the description provides meaningful definitions and defaults for all 9 parameters, such as 'ODCS-compatible contract JSON', 'default CDW', and 'default daily 0 3 * * *'. This fully compensates for the schema's missing 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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Generate DAG from data contract and deploy to Cloudera CDE as an Airflow job.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_dag_from_contract by explicitly adding deployment and the creation/update of CDE files resource and Airflow job.

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 clearly conveys the tool's deployment purpose and side effects, allowing an agent to infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as 'use generate_dag_from_contract if you only need the DAG without deployment.'

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