RemediateObject

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the critical dry_run default behavior, the ability to write/activate, and the diff output. It does not mention side effects, rollback, or authorization needs, but the key safety behavior (dry-run) is clearly stated.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The action is front-loaded, and the critical dry-run behavior is placed prominently. Every word earns its place.

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 core purpose and key behavior are covered, but the description omits any detail about the diff output format and the pagination parameters (startLine, maxLines) that are part of the schema. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left guessing what the diff looks like, and the pagination params are not integrated into the narrative.

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 'supports field name mapping' (already in schema) and reiterates the dry_run default (already in schema). It adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific action ('Replace a C/D CDS view reference in a Z object') and names the resource and outcome. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling read-only tools (Get*) and creation tools by focusing on modification of an existing object, making its role 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 purpose is so specific that the intended usage is clear, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when not to use it, or prerequisites). It implicitly covers when to use it (when replacing a CDS view reference) but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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