bw_update_hierarchy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical behavioral trait: the tree is replaced wholesale, not merged. It also notes the hierarchy id is preserved so dependent queries keep working. It omits operational traits such as authorization/locking requirements or what happens on a partial failure, which is why it is not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the replacement rule, then the id-preservation guarantee. No filler and each sentence adds a distinct fact.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the essential hazards: whole-tree replacement, id stability, and the read-modify-write workflow. It lacks only peripheral detail like failure/rollback behavior or whether a separate activation step is ever required.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters including activate and description are already documented in the schema. The description largely restates the nodes replacement semantics and cross-references bw_create_hierarchy for the nested form, adding only marginal meaning over the structured data — the baseline 3.

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?

Names a specific verb (Change) and resource (hierarchy) and enumerates the mutable parts — description and/or tree. It also differentiates itself from siblings by pointing at bw_get_hierarchy for reading and bw_create_hierarchy for tree shape, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow — read with bw_get_hierarchy, modify, pass the full tree — which is exactly the context needed before invoking this update. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. versus creating a new hierarchy, or when only activation is wanted via bw_activate), so it stops short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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