bioc_insert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the overwrite behavior based on rule_id, tenant-specific constraints, and permission requirements. It also provides the endpoint URL, but does not explain return values or error handling, which would be expected for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured: it opens with the purpose, then adds a critical note, permission requirement, endpoint, and a comprehensive example. Every section earns its place, and despite the length due to the example, it remains focused and easy to scan.

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, lack of output schema, and absent annotations, the description covers the essential operational behavior (upsert, permissions, rule_id). However, it does not mention what the API returns on success or failure, nor does it explain required vs optional fields for insert vs update. This leaves some gaps for an agent to invoke correctly in all scenarios.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the crucial rule_id behavior and provides a fully detailed example request body, which adds significant meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not describe each parameter individually, leaving some fields only illustrated in the example.

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 'Insert or update BIOCs' and expands on the upsert semantics, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bioc_get and bioc_delete. The verb+resource pairing is explicit and 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 description gives clear context for use (insert/update), notes tenant-specific rule_id behavior, and requires Instance Administrator permissions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the upsert semantics and permission note provide sufficient usage context.

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