bw_update_aggregation_level

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden–and it does well, disclosing that the object becomes inactive, that skips are not errors, that invalid removals are refused, and that CompositeProvider accepts both prefixed and bare names. It does not mention potential failure modes like authentication or transport-level permissions, but it covers the most decision-relevant behavioral side effects.

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 dense but never verbose. It front-loads the core purpose and action names, then adds procedural, edge-case, and compatibility details in a logical order with almost no 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?

The description covers the core operation, action-specific nuances, skipped-field behavior, post-update activation requirement, all fields the guard condition for removals, and special CompositeProvider handling. An agent has enough behavioral context to call this tool correctly even without annotations or an output 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?

The schema already covers all 4 parameters well, giving a strong baseline. The description still adds meaningful semantics by explaining what add_fields and remove_fields actually do to the Aggregation Level, who field resolution works, and how CompositeProvider naming behaves.

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 tool updates an existing Aggregation Level by adding or removing fields, with explicit action names. It distinguishes itself from related siblings like bw_create_aggregation_level and bw_get_aggregation_level by emphasizing modification of existing objects rather than creation or retrieval.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when fields need to be added to or removed from an existing Aggregation Level. It also explains the expected follow-up activation step with bw_activate, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative update/create paths.

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