bw_create_decision_variant

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the variant is created and activated (mandatory), explains the branch structure (THEN/ELSE with default labels and event numbers), and describes transport behavior. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting) or error conditions, but the key behaviors are covered.

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 relatively long but well-structured with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by details on branches, activation, and transport. Every sentence adds value, though a slight trim could improve conciseness without losing essential information.

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 9 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description is fairly complete but lacks information about the return value or possible errors. It also does not mention prerequisites or authentication requirements. This leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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%, but the description adds significant context beyond the schema. It explains the purpose of each parameter: name is referenced by chains, formula is the branch condition, and defaults for optional parameters. It integrates parameter meaning with the tool's workflow (e.g., event numbers map to sub_status edges).

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 creates a DECISION process variant as a standalone TLOGO object for use in a Process Chain. It specifies the action (create), the resource (decision variant), and the purpose (branch/decision step). It distinguishes from siblings by explaining how to use the variant afterward with specific chain creation tools.

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 on when to use this tool (to create a decision variant) and offers guidance on package/transport choices, including default $TMP vs. transportable packages. It references related tools (bw_create_process_chain, bw_update_process_chain) for subsequent steps. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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