bw_set_transformation_routine_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states that the tool does not activate but returns a lock_handle, and describes rejection conditions. However, it does not mention potential side effects like locking, permission requirements, or whether the change is reversible. Adds sufficient but not exhaustive context.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the main purpose, then covers prerequisites, constraints, and return value concisely. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description covers the return value (lock_handle) and references related tools (bw_set_transformation_routine, bw_activate). The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and constraints, though it could briefly mention that transformation_name is required (already in schema).

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%, with each parameter described. The tool description adds critical semantics: mutual exclusivity of fields and exclude_fields, case-insensitivity, and the condition that field names must exist in the target segment. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 verb 'Edit' and the resource 'list of target fields' for the global END routine. It differentiates from siblings such as bw_set_transformation_routine (which creates the routine) and bw_activate (which activates after editing).

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?

The description provides explicit prerequisites (requires existing END routine), specifies mutually exclusive parameters (fields or exclude_fields), and lists rejection conditions. It indirectly suggests a workflow by returning a lock_handle for bw_activate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if the routine does not exist).

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