bw_update_dtp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses delta-init implications for extraction mode switches but omits details on whether the update is incremental or full, error conditions, or prerequisites like object locking. 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?

The description is front-loaded with the main actions and uses two sentences plus a concise note. It is efficient without being overly terse; the note is placed appropriately.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is relatively brief. It covers the core purpose and a key behavioral note but lacks details on return values, synchronous/asynchronous behavior, or error scenarios. Acceptable but could be more complete.

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 explaining the filter use case and extraction mode implications. It does not add additional meaning for all parameters (e.g., transport_lock_holder), but the added context warrants a 4.

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 it updates DTP properties (description, filter, extraction mode) and specifies the use case 'setting filter values on existing filter fields'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bw_create_dtp and bw_get_dtp.

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: 'Use this for setting filter values on existing filter fields' and notes extraction mode implications. It doesn't explicitly exclude other use cases or compare with alternatives like bw_set_dtp_filter_routine, but the context is sufficient.

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