Edtb Cfe Borrow Method

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses that a method is read, an interceptor is generated and inserted, writes happen either via proxy or by appending to .bsl plus resync, and that dryRun returns a plan without applying. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but core behavioral impact is clear.

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 a bit long due to a complete parameter list, but it is well organized with a summary, parameter block, and return block. The key purpose is front-loaded, and no sentence is purely decorative.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, the description covers the full workflow, fallback path, parameter constraints, dry-run behavior, and return fields. Nothing essential for an agent to select and invoke the tool is missing.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates by documenting every one of the 9 parameters, including FQN examples, moduleType and mode enums, default values for newName, extProjectPath and baseProjectPath, the formName condition, and dryRun semantics. This is far richer than the input schema alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it 'borrows' a BSL method from the base project, generates an interceptor with the correct annotation, and inserts it into the extension module. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools concerned with forms, MXL, panels, or design checks.

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 intended use is implied: create an extension interceptor for a base method. It also explains a fallback path when EDT-MCP is unavailable, but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives like edtb_plan_mutations or edtb_apply_mutations, nor provides exclusions.

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