check_column_drop_safe

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the tool's composite nature, the exact four signal sources, the output as a verdict with ranked blockers and a recommended_action, and the defined verdict tiers. This adds substantial behavioral context that is not available from annotations or schema alone, setting clear expectations for the agent.

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 core content is packed into one informative sentence listing signals and output, followed by a concise list of verdict tiers. The final promotional sentence ('The killer feature...') adds no functional value and is mild fluff, preventing a perfect score.

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 tool is relatively complex with no output schema, but the description covers the key return elements (verdict, ranked blockers, recommended_action), the verdict tiers, and the four input signals. It does not detail error handling or per-signal edge cases, but for an agent it provides sufficient context to invoke and interpret the result. This is slightly more than the bare minimum, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 67%, with column and window_days already described; the tool description reinforces that runtime traffic (and thus window_days) is one of the four signals. However, it adds no new meaning for dataset_id, which remains undocumented in both schema and description. Since coverage is moderate and the description does not fully compensate, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb+resource: a composite preflight check on whether a column is safe to drop. It distinguishes itself from siblings by enumerating four fused signals (primary-key, foreign-key, cross-dataset name match, runtime traffic) and listing the verdict tiers, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies a clear usage context: use this tool when you need a preflight safety check before dropping a column, and it mentions that it fuses multiple signals, which hints at being a comprehensive alternative to simpler individual checks. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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