manage_bom_parts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals that operations are batched and that 'remove' deletes a line item, but says nothing about permissions required, whether removals are reversible, or how the optional stock adjustment interacts with allocation—significant gaps for a destructive mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact Args block. It is appropriately sized, though the parameter list paraphrases schema content rather than adding new 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the batch semantics are conveyed. Still, for an unannotated multi-operation mutation tool the description leaves gaps around permissions, reversibility, and the stock-adjustment behavior that an agent would want before calling.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0%, but the nested BomPartInput fields are individually documented in the schema. The description summarizes most item fields ('part_number'/'part_id', 'quantity', 'reference_designator', optional 'remove') yet omits 'notes' and 'adjust_stock_delta', so it adds only marginal value over the nested schema descriptions.

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?

States specific verbs (allocate, update, remove) with a clear resource (BOM line items) and scope (for a project), so an agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby consume_project_bom sibling.

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 batch manipulation of BOM items but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as consume_project_bom. The agent must infer which sibling to pick from the name alone.

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