bw_update_process_chain

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears transparency. It details the read-then-write pattern for ETag, preservation of trigger node and header, replacement scope (only steps and edges), optional overrides, activation behavior, and how ETag staleness is handled (412 error). Also explains default edge status logic and verification status of step types.

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 fairly long but well-organized, front-loading the core action and key behaviors. Every sentence adds value, but minor redundancy in explaining edge defaults could be tightened. Still, it remains focused and informative without excessive verbosity.

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 complexity (multiple step types, edge conditions, ETag handling, optional overrides) and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it works, what's supported, what error to expect, and how it relates to its creation sibling. No critical information is missing.

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% but description adds significant context beyond property descriptions: e.g., 'TRIGGER node is implicit at index 0', default edge status based on source type, required DTP when type is DTP_LOAD, and behavior of generic referenced step types with verification status. This enriches parameter understanding greatly.

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 replaces step model of an existing Process Chain via REST API. It distinguishes from sibling 'bw_create_process_chain' by specifying update vs create. The verb 'Replace' and resource 'step model of an existing Process Chain' is specific and 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use bw_create_process_chain to create a new chain; use this tool to update an existing one.' Also lists supported step types and edges, and explicitly mentions unsupported types: 'Other inline-configuration process types... are not supported.' Provides clear context for selection.

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