deploy_data_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'WRITE operation', describes destructive behavior via 'replace: Delete any existing model of the same name first', and mentions the required BIP Author role for fusion_user. This is substantive behavioral disclosure beyond simple mutation, though it omits details about failure modes when replace=false.

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 well-structured with a two-sentence overview followed by a bulleted list of parameters. Each line is purposeful and directly useful; no fluff or repetition. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, parameters, and critical behavioral constraints (write, replace, auth). An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. It lacks some edge-case context like folder existence requirements or behavior when replace is false, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to deploy a data model safely.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for all parameters: name formats, xdm_xml content guidance (ApplicationDB_FSCM), folder examples, replace behavior, and fusion_user role requirement. This significantly exceeds basic schema field names.

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 a specific action: 'Deploy a BIP data model (.xdm) to a catalog folder.' It identifies the resource (data model), format (.xdm), and destination (catalog folder), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy_report. The verb 'deploy' is precise and unambiguous.

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 usage by stating the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like deploy_report or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It gives clear context for deployment but no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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