modify_1c_code

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

No annotations provided. The description only says 'modification based on explicit user instruction' but does not disclose effects (e.g., overwriting, permissions), error handling, or return format. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 a single sentence with no redundancy, which is structurally fine. However, its brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it under-specified rather than concise.

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 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a complex task (code modification), the description is severely incomplete. An output schema exists but is not described. Many critical aspects are missing.

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 0%. The description does not explain the parameters 'instruction' (required) or 'code' (optional, default ''). Without any context, an agent cannot infer acceptable values or formats.

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 'Modification of BSL code based on explicit user instruction,' clearly indicating the verb (modify) and resource (BSL code). It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_1c_code' and 'explain_1c_syntax,' but could be more specific about the type of modification.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., 'ask_1c_ai' for code generation, 'explain_1c_syntax' for syntax help). The description lacks any usage context or exclusions.

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