what_if

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the +/− syntax but does not say whether changes are permanent, what happens to the KB, or what output to expect beyond 'see how they affect query results.'

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first phrase and useful syntax guidance in the second sentence. It contains no filler, though it could have been longer to cover more behavioral detail without harming structure.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and minimal schema descriptions, the description is too sparse for reliable invocation. It gives one hint about modifications but leaves the roles of other parameters and the non-obvious semantics of the tool largely unexplained.

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?

The schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description only clarifies the modifications parameter via the +/− syntax. Parameters like base_knowledge, delta_knowledge, max_depth, and max_solutions receive no semantic explanation beyond their names.

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's function: applying modifications to a knowledge base to see effects on query results. It is distinct enough from siblings like reason and explain, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 phrase 'What-if analysis' implies hypothetical exploration, and the +/− prefix instructions signal how to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor when not to use it.

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