aras_manage_bom_line

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation mutates by adding/updating/removing, but does not explain the destructive nature of 'rimuovi', disambiguation when multiple lines might match, permissions, or what the result/error behavior looks like.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. It leads with the action and concludes with the identifying mechanism, in a structure that is easy for an agent to parse.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three behaviors embedded in a single field, a one-line description is insufficient. It does not say how 'aggiorna' or 'rimuovi' targets a unique row, does not describe output/error response, and does not clarify whether editing is by (assieme, componente, riferimento) or by other criteria.

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 description's reference to two Parts by item_number helps map to 'assieme' and 'componente' in the schema, and the listed verb 'aggiunge, aggiorna, rimuovi' directly mirrors the enum values for 'azione'. However, 'quantita' and the optionality/meaning of 'riferimento' are not explained further, leaving 60% schema coverage to carry most of the weight.

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 a specific operation: adding, updating, or removing a BOM line between two Parts. It also clarifies the key identification method (by item_number), which makes it distinguishable from sibling tools like aras_get_bom or aras_create_relationship.

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 usage context is implied: this tool should be used when the agent needs to modify a BOM line. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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