Create Material BOM

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true (modifies data) and readOnlyHint=false, which the description's 'Create' action aligns with. The description adds behavioral context by noting that component creation is a separate two-step process. However, it does not address authorization needs, error states, or idempotency. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences: the first defines the purpose and required fields, the second explains component handling. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 absence of an output schema, the description covers the creation process well, including the two-step nature for components. It handles the complexity of 10 parameters and nested objects. However, it does not describe the return value or error scenarios.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The tool description adds value by explicitly listing required fields (material, plant, bomHeaderBaseUnit, bomHeaderQuantityInBaseUnit) and explaining the component creation flow, but this is marginal beyond the schema.

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 'Create a Material BOM header and (optionally) its components', specifying the verb ('Create') and resource ('Material BOM'). It lists the required fields, distinguishing this creation tool from siblings like s4_material_bom_list, s4_material_bom_get, and s4_material_bom_update.

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 explains that components are created as separate follow-up requests after the header, providing some process guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., s4_material_bom_update), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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