impact_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, but description discloses exact case-sensitive matching, transitive multi-hop behavior, derivation of workbooks from downstream sheets/dashboards, and site-level Data Management limitation. It also notes the flat downstreamWorkbooks edge is unreliable, which is valuable behavior beyond schema.

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 longer than typical but every sentence adds unique operational context: main behavior, comparison, matching rules, workbook derivation, and fallback. Front-loaded with the core purpose and no 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no annotations and minimal schema, the description covers output contents, owner de-duplication, caveats about Data Management, and relationship to sibling tool. It provides enough context for correct invocation without needing additional documentation.

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?

Input schema only has 'name' with no description. Description adds that `name` is exact and case-sensitive and identifies the target as a column, field, or table, giving the parameter actionable meaning.

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?

Description states 'Full transitive (MULTI-HOP) downstream impact' and clarifies 'what breaks if I change/drop this?' It specifically distinguishes from `where_used`, making sibling differentiation explicit. This is a strong purpose statement.

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?

Explicitly frames when to use ('what breaks if I change/drop this?') and contrasts with `where_used` ('one core-lineage hop'). Also provides a fallback direction when transitive lineage may not be indexed ('use `where_used` for the direct references').

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