aras_replace_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and mostly delivers: it discloses global scope across all BOMs and explicitly states that dryRun (default) previews the affected assemblies before any change. It would be even better with a warning about irreversibility or permission requirements, but the dry-run default significantly mitigates risk.

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?

Two concise clauses deliver the core functionality, global scope, and default dry-run behavior. No filler words, and the most important facts are front-loaded.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly sufficient: the agent knows the purpose, the required parameters from the schema, the global scope, and the default safe behavior. The only missing context is what dryRun=false precisely returns once the replacement is executed, and potential permissions, but this is enough to call it 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?

The schema already documents vecchio and nuovo as item numbers, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral meaning to dryRun, explaining that it shows affected assemblies first. This compensates for the missing dryRun field description in the schema, though vecchio/nuovo add no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: replacing one component with another across ALL BOMs that use it. It also names real use cases—obsolescence and second sourcing—and the phrase 'in TUTTE le distinte' clearly differentiates this global operation from per-BOM or single-item tools.

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 clearly communicates when to use this tool: when a component is obsolete or being second-sourced and needs global replacement. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'TUTTE' scope and the examples make the intended use obvious.

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