bw_create_transformation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: server-generated name (32-char UUID-like) and inactive creation. It does not cover permissions, failure modes, or side effects, so it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences containing essential information: purpose, name behavior, and post-creation action. No redundant words, highly efficient.

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 no output schema, the description is complete enough for the tool's complexity. It explains the result (inactive transformation), references the needed sibling tool (bw_activate), and covers parameters adequately. Could mention the return value or confirmation, but not critical.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that source_system is required for RSDS and that copy_from_transformation exists. It does not elaborate on parameter formatting beyond the schema, but the added context justifies the baseline.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Create a new Transformation between two BW objects'. It lists object types (aDSO, DataSource, etc.), distinguishes from sibling tools like bw_delete or bw_activate by stating it creates and is followed by activation.

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?

Explicitly states the created transformation is inactive and instructs to call bw_activate with object_type 'trfn'. This provides clear post-creation guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or list alternatives for other creation tasks.

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