transpile_lineage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and reveals the internal 6-agent transpiler process (Ingest, Parse, Emit, BeastMode, Repoint, Reconcile) and the specific outputs (bronze/silver/gold SQL, semantic-metrics view, connector-swap plan, reconciliation gate). It also explains the input composition (Magic ETL, DataSet schema, card Beast Modes). However, it does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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—two sentences that front-load the purpose in the first sentence and elaborate on the process and outputs in the second. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's complexity (6-agent transpiler with multiple outputs), the description adequately covers the process, inputs, and outputs. An output schema exists to document return values, so the description focuses on what the tool does. It also mentions a prerequisite (lineage_id from domo_assess), making it complete for an agent to understand usage.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: for lineage_id, it notes that valid IDs come from domo_assess; for out_dir, it clarifies the default behavior; for industry, it explains the purpose of tagging. This extra information improves parameter understanding.

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 purpose: to transpile a Domo lineage triplet into a Databricks SDP medallion. It specifies the verb 'Transpile,' the resource 'Domo lineage triplet,' and the outcome 'Databricks SDP medallion.' It also lists the 6-agent transpiler steps and outputs, distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like domo_assess or migration_plan.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only hints at a prerequisite by mentioning that valid lineage_ids come from domo_assess, but provides no guidance on when to choose transpile_lineage over other tools such as domo_discover or lakeflow_feasibility.

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