fluig_process_event_set_xml

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

Discloses key behaviors: produces a new revertible version, passes server-side validation, and is a write operation (WRITE). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds context about the export-patch-reimport lifecycle but could mention permissions or error handling.

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 succinct sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with 'WRITE' for immediate clarity. Every sentence earns its place, providing core action, workflow, and a usage tip.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main workflow and validation but misses expected output/response format and what happens on failure. The agent lacks information on return values or error handling. Could be more complete for a complex write tool.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the overall workflow (export-patch-reimport), which gives context to parameters like version (source version to export) and code (complete source). This helps the agent understand how parameters relate. Still, the description could elaborate on confirm's role.

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?

Starts with 'WRITE' and clearly states the verb (set) and resource (process event source). Describes the exact workflow (export-patch-reimport), distinguishing it from siblings like fluig_process_event_set. The title also includes '_xml' hinting at XML-based operation.

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?

Explicitly recommends trying dryRun=true first, which is a strong usage guideline. However, it does not compare with alternative tools (e.g., fluig_process_event_set) or specify when not to use this tool. Lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives.

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