bc_respond_dialog

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

No annotations were provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains the effects of different response values, mentions checking changedSections, and warns about chained dialogs. However, it does not mention any rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential irreversibility of actions beyond the dialog context.

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 with the primary purpose upfront, followed by usage details, parameter guidance, and examples. It is somewhat long but each section adds necessary context for correct usage. Could be slightly more concise, but maintains clarity.

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 the complexity of dialog handling in Business Central, the description covers all essential aspects: when to call, how to obtain identifiers, valid responses, what to check after calling (changedSections, chained dialogs). With no output schema, the description adequately explains expected outcomes.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by contextualizing parameters: where to find dialogFormId (from dialogsOpened or requestPage), what each response value means in context (e.g., 'yes' for yes/no questions), and example usage. This enhances the schematic definitions.

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 tool responds to Business Central dialogs/confirmation prompts, specifying that dialogs are triggered by other tools (bc_execute_action, bc_write_data, bc_run_report). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bc_open_page or bc_read_data which have different purposes.

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-call guidance: only after receiving a dialogsOpened array or requestPage, and warns not to call without a preceding dialog. It also advises to use the exact dialogFormId from responses and gives examples of response values like 'ok' for confirmation dialogs.

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