bw_create_hierarchy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose mutation behavior: it creates AND activates, and the schema's activate description notes that false keeps a revised version. It also surfaces the prerequisite and the time/version-dependency restriction. It stops short of stating permissions or what the call returns, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose and activation are front-loaded, and the node-structure and constraint sentences each add needed detail. It is slightly dense with a long final restriction clause, but there is little waste.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers creation, the nested node contract, the activation toggle, the prerequisite, and the dependency restriction. Return values are not covered, but the input contract – the part an agent must get right – is well specified.

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 a 3 is the baseline, but the description adds genuine semantic value by explaining the nested node shape that the schema only gestures at: a text_node groups nodes while a value node is a value of the characteristic, and 'each node appears once'. That clarifies the otherwise opaque 'items: object' array.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a hierarchy for a characteristic') and distinguishes it from the sibling CRUD set (bw_get_hierarchy, bw_update_hierarchy, bw_delete_hierarchy) by the creation action. It also names the activation side-effect, so the agent knows it is a create-and-maybe-activate operation.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite ('The characteristic must have hierarchies switched on') and an explicit exclusion ('Not time-dependent and not version-dependent hierarchies only'), which tells the agent when creation is valid. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the create-vs-update vs get sibling split is self-evident.

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