bw_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses permanence/immediacy of deletion, the lock/unlock sequence, that query deletion spares referenced variables/CKFs/RKFs, the active-path behavior for planning sequences/filters/conversion types, and the refusal case when a filter is still referenced. This is exactly the destructive-operation context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then dense supporting detail; every sentence (sequence, query exception, planning/filter rules, dependency note) contributes actionable information. It is long but not padded, staying just short of maximal efficiency.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the sequencing, type-specific exceptions, refusal conditions, and cross-object dependencies that an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Nothing material is left unspecified.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by naming additional object_type values (plsq, filter, ctrt, uomt) and the "elem" alias for queries. It does not describe the object_name format beyond what the schema already gives.

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 (Delete) and resource (BW object) and enumerates the covered types (aDSO, InfoObject, Transformation, DTP, Query), making the scope concrete. It does not explicitly route the agent away from the more granular siblings (bw_delete_hierarchy, bw_delete_request, bw_delete_transformation_routine), so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Provides operational context (lock → DELETE → unlock, no activation needed) and a dependency rule (delete aDSOs before their InfoObjects), which implies correct usage. However it never states when to choose this generic tool versus the specialized delete siblings, so alternative-selection guidance is missing.

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