bw_change_package

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: no activation, no version change, active object stays active, verified for specific types, and a warning about TRFN re-activation. It honestly notes that other types are not trace-verified.

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 slightly long but every sentence provides necessary detail. There is no fluff or repetition, and it is structured logically: action, behavior, warnings, special cases.

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 5 parameters with 3 required and no output schema, the description adequately covers behavior, side effects, verified object types, and parameter nuances. It is complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the compound key for RSDS and that the change is verified by re-reading the DataSource. It also gives example values and clarifies mandatory conditions.

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 verb 'assign' and the resource 'BW object to a different package', specifying it is a pure TADIR/transport assignment with no activation or version change. This distinguishes it from siblings like bw_move_object.

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 clear context: it's a single write, no activation needed, and explicitly warns not to re-activate TRFN afterwards. It also specifies that for RSDS, source_system is mandatory. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other tools 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.