bw_create_dtp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses auto-activation after creation and the persistent HTTP 500 error scenario. However, it does not mention idempotency, effects of duplicate creations, or performance implications. Still, 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 well-structured, starting with purpose, then details, then an IMPORTANT section. It is relatively long but every sentence adds necessary information. Could be slightly more concise but remains clear and organized.

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 of 11 parameters, 5 required, and no output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context: chain determination, filter usage, auto-activation, and error prevention. It references sibling tools for pre-checks, making it complete for safe and effective use.

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 the chain logic for trfn_name and trfn_name_2, and how filter parameters work together. It does not repeat schema descriptions but provides contextual usage that aids parameter understanding.

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 DTP for an existing transformation and activates it. It specifies the verb 'create', the resource 'DTP', and distinguishes from sibling tools like bw_update_dtp and bw_get_dtp by focusing on creation and activation. The mention of server-generated name and optional filter adds specificity.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use single-step vs two-step chains, with concrete examples (ADSO->ADSO vs ADSO->TRCS->ADSO). It warns about HTTP 500 error if trfn_name_2 is omitted in two-step chains. It recommends using bw_get_transformation or bw_xref for chain determination. This is comprehensive usage advice.

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