bw_update_ckf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: all operations are applied in a single save, so a rejected operation leaves the stored formula unchanged. This is valuable, but it does not cover other behavioral aspects like permissions or reversibility. The atomicity disclosure lifts it above minimum, but it remains partial.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then clearly presenting the two modes and the atomicity guarantee. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 the complex nested parameters and rich schema, the description provides essential context about the two editing modes and the atomic save behavior. It doesn't explain return values (no output schema), but the schema fully documents parameters. The missing pieces are minor and don't impede correct invocation.

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. The description adds value by explaining the semantic difference between 'formula' (whole replacement) and 'operations' (targeted edits that preserve other parts), and the atomic save behavior that affects how parameters interact. This goes beyond the schema's per-field 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Change a reusable Calculated Key Figure'), and the two call forms (formula replacement vs. targeted operations) clearly distinguish it from sibling update tools like bw_update_rkf and bw_create_ckf. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly explains when to use each of the two call forms, including the 'usual case' of adding a summand without rebuilding the formula, and states the mutual exclusivity of formula and operations. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the within-tool routing is clear and contextually sufficient.

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