bw_update_rkf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well: it reveals UID stability, intact references, full replacement of restrictions when provided, and the in-place nature. It does not mention authorization or what happens when no mutable field is supplied, but the core side effects are transparent.

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 first phrase front-loads the purpose, but the single sentence becomes long due to the delete-and-recreate comparison. That comparison is relevant and earns its place; splitting it into two sentences would improve structure.

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 an update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior, the consequences for references, and full-replacement semantics. Minor gaps include explicit handling when only component_name is provided and transport/activation requirements, but neither blocks correct invocation in most cases.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mostly repeats what the schema already documents about 'restrictions' replacing ALL characteristic restrictions; it adds no significant new meaning beyond that for the individual parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('reusable Restricted Key Figure in place') and names the exact mutable attributes. It also distinguishes itself from the delete-and-recreate correction path, making it clear this is an in-place update with UID preservation.

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 gives the key usage context: use the in-place update when you need to preserve references from CKFs, structures, and queries, and explains why delete-and-recreate is impossible once the RKF is referenced or deletion is disabled. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like bw_create_rkf, but the alternative path is clearly identified.

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