get_schema_impact

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: walks inferred FK graph to max_depth, surfaces direct and transitive hits, normalizes blast_score to [0,1], and flags type_mismatch for retype_column. Explicitly states read-only, fully consistent with annotations.

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 dense sentences, each contributing important info: the change types, the graph-walking algorithm, and the retype-specific edge case. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 7 parameters, an inferred FK graph, and no output schema, the description covers key output semantics (blast_score normalization, type_mismatch flags) and explains the traversal logic. It does not describe return structure, but the absence of an output schema and the rich behavioral description make this 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?

Schema covers most parameters (71% per context), with descriptions for kind, column, new_name, new_type, max_depth, window_days. The description enhances meaning by explaining how kind affects behavior (retype type_mismatch detection) and how max_depth controls graph traversal, adding value beyond raw schema definitions.

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 computes transitive impact of column-level schema changes (drop/rename/retype), specifying both the action and the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like check_column_drop_safe by focusing on transitive FK graph traversal and blast_score normalization.

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 specifies the tool's context: assessing impact of column-level changes, especially for retype with type_mismatch flagging. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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