bw_create_structure

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure itself. It does describe the structure's reuse semantics and member composition, but it does not disclose operational side effects such as whether the object needs activation, how transport/package choices affect persistence, or what happens if the technical name already exists.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the core purpose and then clarify what members contain. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The schema is rich and the description explains the domain concept, but without an output schema or annotations the agent is left without explicit information about return values, prerequisites, or post-creation activation/transport behavior. This is adequate but not complete for a creation tool.

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?

Input schema covers all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only mild extra meaning by explaining that members can be either reusable CKF/RKF or basic key figures; the remaining parameters are already well-described in the schema.

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 names a specific action and resource: create a reusable key figure structure on an InfoProvider. It immediately clarifies the object's purpose as a shared query axis, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create individual key figures or queries.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: use this when you want one structure definition to drive all reporting queries that embed it as an axis. The schema adds that members can be added later via bw_update_structure, which is an implicit exclusion, though the description itself does not explicitly name alternatives.

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