bc_wizard_navigate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals how button identification works (by icon resource, not SystemAction/caption, enabling localised wizards), what the response contains (fields, availableNav, closed flag), and the side effect that the wizard closes itself on finish/cancel and the pageContextId becomes invalid. These are valuable behavioral details beyond basic operation.

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 appropriately structured: purpose first, then usage guidance, behavioral notes, a workflow, exclusions, and an example. Every sentence adds practical value, and the length is justified given the tool's complexity. It is not verbose or repetitive—each section 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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description delivers a complete picture: when to use the tool, how it behaves internally, what the response exposes, what happens after finish/cancel, and a concrete workflow. The tool is stateful and wizard-specific, and the description adequately covers its lifecycle and edge cases.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning beyond the schema. It explains that pageContextId is 'returned by bc_open_page' and elaborates on each action value ('next' advances, 'back' returns, 'finish' completes, 'cancel' aborts). The example further clarifies parameter usage. This contextualizes the parameters effectively.

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 and resource: 'Drive a Business Central NavigatePage / wizard by semantic step.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by scoping it to wizards (NavigatePage) and explicitly excluding non-wizard pages (which should use bc_execute_action). This makes the tool's purpose 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use after bc_open_page on a page whose response has isModal: true and pageType: "NavigatePage".' It also states when not to use it: 'Do NOT use this for non-wizard pages -- use bc_execute_action instead.' A typical workflow is outlined, and a warning about not calling 'next' past the last step is given. This fully covers usage context and alternatives.

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