bw_create_ckf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses conditional side effects (records to a transport when package and transport_request are given), the output field 'recorded_in', and that formula trees from bw_get_ckf can be written unchanged. This goes beyond a bare create statement, though it omits error behavior and validation details.

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, front-loading the purpose, then adding key behavioral details about formula syntax and transport recording. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with a nested formula object and no output schema, the description provides essential cross-tool context and transport behavior. It covers the primary pitfalls (formula compatibility, conditional transport recording) and mentions the response field, making it reasonably complete. Minor gaps like existing-name conflicts are absent but not critical.

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 meaning by clarifying that transport recording requires both package and transport_request, and by referencing the formula tree syntax for reuse from bw_update_query_key_figures and bw_get_ckf. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 reusable Calculated Key Figure (CKF) on an InfoProvider', giving a specific verb, resource, and target. It differentiates from siblings like bw_update_ckf and bw_get_ckf through the 'Create' action, making the tool's unique role 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 (creating a CKF) and provides context about formula syntax compatibility with bw_update_query_key_figures and bw_get_ckf. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives such as bw_update_ckf for modifications, relying on the verb to imply the use case.

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