bw_update_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behaviors: changes propagate to every query embedding the structure, and all operations are written in a single save (implying atomicity). It doesn't discuss irreversibility or error handling, but the propagation warning is especially valuable context.

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, each purposeful: opening purpose, rationale/scope, and atomicity guarantee. No fluff or repetition of schema content. Wild-structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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 mutation tool with nested operations, the description covers the key propagation caveat and atomicity but doesn't address operation ordering effects, member matching precedence, or failure behavior. The schema is detailed for parameters and ordering, but the lack of annotations and output schema makes the description moderately complete rather than fully so.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond framing the operations (add/remove/re-configure), which the schema's action enum already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Change), resource (reusable structure), and scope (add, remove or re-configure members). It also differentiates itself from query-level tools by explaining the change applies at the structure itself, not through one query.

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?

Clearly signals when to use this tool: when a change must reach every query embedding the structure, and explicitly contrasts it with modifying through one query. It doesn't name a specific sibling tool, but the contextual cue ('one query that happens to use it') maps to query-update tools, so the usage guidance is strong though not exhaustive.

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