bc_navigate

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that select does NOT open the record or return new data, drill_down returns a NEW pageContextId and leaves the original page open (requiring bc_close_page for both), and that navigation only works on repeater rows. These are critical behavioral traits beyond any schema or annotation.

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: a one-sentence purpose summary, then action-by-action details, a section-targeting note, explicit warnings, and examples. While longer than many descriptions, every sentence earns its place—no filler—and the use of bullet-like paragraphs and a compact example block aids scannability.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return behavior itself. It does: select 'does NOT return new data,' drill_down 'Returns a NEW pageContextId for the opened Card/Document page with its full state.' It also covers prerequisites, section handling, and page-closing responsibilities, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (every parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. However, the description goes well beyond the schema by explaining the action enum behavior in narrative form, clarifying the source of bookmark/pageContextId (from bc_open_page or bc_read_data), and providing concrete JSON examples for select vs drill_down with optional section. This added meaning justifies a 4.

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 verb+resource: 'Navigates to a specific record on an open Business Central List or Document page using its bookmark.' It clearly distinguishes the two supported actions (select vs drill_down) and differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating what it does not do (field-level lookups via bc_lookup, direct row targeting via bc_execute_action). This is a model of purpose clarity.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It states 'bc_execute_action can target a row directly... so you usually do not need a separate select before an action like Delete,' and 'For field-level lookups... use bc_lookup, not this tool.' It also warns 'Do NOT use this for Card pages -- it only works on pages with repeater rows,' giving clear exclusions and alternatives.

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