bw_create_datasource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: the datasource is created inactive, the structure is derived from the remote entity, binding is via adapter externalObject (not name equality), and it only works with Development-Class $TMP (local objects). It also notes that field/key/partitioning editing is not supported. This provides a comprehensive behavioral picture.

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 essential information front-loaded. It is slightly longer than minimal but every sentence adds value. No redundant statements. A minor improvement could be to condense some details, but overall it is effective.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is very complete. It explains creation behavior, constraints, prerequisites, and post-creation steps. Combined with the input schema, an agent has sufficient information 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% (all 5 parameters described), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: it explains that hana_entity is bound as adapter externalObject, defaults to datasource_name, and is case-sensitive. It clarifies that description defaults to hana_entity value. It also specifies that source_system must be a HANA/SDA/SDI source system. These details go beyond the schema definitions.

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 explicitly states the tool creates a DataSource (RSDS) from a remote entity's field proposal, leaving it inactive. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bw_activate by specifying that activation is separate. The verb 'Create' and resource 'DataSource' are clear, and the description highlights unique constraints like 'no field, key, or partitioning editing' and 'local objects only'.

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 when-to-use guidance: to create a DataSource on top of a remote entity. It specifies prerequisites: use bw_list_remote_entities to find a valid hana_entity. It also gives explicit next steps: after creation, activate with bw_activate. This helps the agent understand the sequence and alternatives.

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