bw_update_query_key_figures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly describes the tool's behavior: all operations are applied in a single save, it handles local restrictions, formula trees, and member properties. However, it does not explicitly state whether mutations are permanent or if write permissions are required, which would enhance transparency.

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 purpose but is quite lengthy (about 20 lines) due to extensive formula details and edge cases. While these details are valuable, the description could be more concise by moving some technical specifics to the schema or a separate note. As is, it is adequately structured but not optimally succinct.

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 tool's complexity (multiple operation types, recursive formula structures, optional restrictions), the description is comprehensive. It provides necessary context for operations, formula encoding, and interaction with reusable structures. The lack of an output schema means no return value explanation is needed. However, it omits error conditions and behavior for non-existent queries, which keeps it from being fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the formula tree in detail (recursive node types, operator codes, infix/prefix handling), which goes beyond schema descriptions. It also clarifies the 'structure_target' behavior and the interaction with reusable structures. This justifies a score above baseline.

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's purpose: 'Manage the key figure structure of an existing BW Query' and lists specific operations (add key figures, references, formulas, set properties, remove members). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it targets key figure structures, and mentions a related tool 'bw_update_query_layout add_structure' for reusable structures, providing differentiation.

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 implies usage context (modifying key figure structures, single save operation) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that operations also apply to a reusable structure referenced via another tool, but lacks guidance on prerequisites, when not to use, or exclusions.

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