bw_change_package

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

The description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a single write, no activation, the object becomes inactive, and must be re-activated via bw_activate. It also mentions verification for RSDS and trace-verification for specific types. This is comprehensive given no annotations are provided.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—yet packs all necessary information: purpose, behavioral notes, post-condition, special cases, and verification status. No waste.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, side effects, post-requisites, and special cases. It lacks explicit error handling or return value details, but the core functionality is well-covered.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that source_system is mandatory for RSDS and why, and that the change is verified by re-reading DataSource. This enhances understanding 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 the tool's purpose: assign an existing BW object to a different package and record on a transport request. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the action (package change) and the post-condition (object becomes inactive).

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 provides guidance on when to use it (for package reassignment) and what to do after (call bw_activate). It also notes the special requirement for RSDS objects and mentions which types are verified. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like bw_move_object.

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