aras_add_manufacturer_part

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

With no annotations, the description itself must convey side effects. It states that it creates and approves, but does not mention permissions required, whether it modifies existing data, implications for the part's lifecycle, or error behavior. The mention of 'creando il costruttore se non esiste' gives some behavior but is insufficient for a fully transparent contract.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey the core action and its multi-entity coverage. It is well-structured, front-loading the main verb and object, and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 and moderate complexity (4 required parameters, multiple entities). The description covers the high-level action but omits return value expectations, failure conditions, and any post-conditions (e.g., status of the part after approval). Without this, an agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior in a complete workflow.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for only two of four parameters (mpn and perPart), and the description does not distinctly map each parameter. While it hints at 'costruttore' and 'descrizione', it does not clarify their exact roles (e.g., what 'descrizione' applies to). The description fails to compensate for the missing schema details, leaving ambiguity for parameter semantics.

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 the action (adds a manufacturer part and approves it on a part) and the resource (Manufacturer Part, Part). It also specifies the conditional creation of the manufacturer, making the primary purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the combined 'one step' coverage.

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 implies usage for scenarios requiring simultaneous creation/approval and manufacturer handling, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., aras_create_part or aras_create_relationship). The 'Copre in un passo' phrase suggests a single-step convenience, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when' guidance, leaving some inference to the agent.

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