bc_wizard_navigate

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains how navigation buttons are identified (by icon resource), the response fields (new step fields, availableNav, closed flag), and the fact that the wizard closes itself on finish/cancel, invalidating the pageContextId. This is comprehensive.

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 and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides details, examples, and warnings. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy. The example JSON helps clarify usage efficiently.

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 wizard navigation and the fact that no output schema exists, the description adequately covers return behavior (fields, availableNav, closed flag) and the typical workflow (bc_open_page -> bc_write_data -> navigate -> ...). It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the action enum values with more context (e.g., 'next' advances, 'back' returns) and providing a concrete JSON example. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: driving a Business Central NavigatePage/wizard by semantic step. It specifies the verb (navigate), resource (wizard), and distinguishes from siblings like bc_execute_action. The context of use (after bc_open_page on a modal NavigatePage) is precisely stated.

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?

Explicit usage guidelines are provided: when to use (after bc_open_page with specific response conditions) and when not to use (non-wizard pages, instead use bc_execute_action). It also warns against using 'next' past the last step and advises using 'finish' when available. This offers clear decision support.

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