bw_update_structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious traits: the change reaches every embedding query (blast radius) and all operations are applied to one document in a single save (atomicity/ordering). It says nothing about required authorizations, the transport_request requirement, reversibility, or what happens if a member match fails, so the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and the rationale sentence earns its place by explaining the structure-level scope. The phrasing ('which is the point, and the reason...') is slightly discursive for a tool definition but not wasteful.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and atomicity but omits permissions, transport handling, failure behavior, and return value expectations. The rich input schema offsets much of this, but the definition is only adequate for a write operation of this nature.

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%, and the per-parameter descriptions are detailed (action enum semantics, parent/position/member_id behavior), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond it, which is the expected 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?

States a specific verb (change) plus resource (reusable structure) and enumerates the member-level actions (add, remove, re-configure). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from query-level siblings like bw_update_query_key_figures by framing the change as happening at the structure, though it never names an alternative tool directly.

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 a clear usage rationale: use this when the change must propagate to every query embedding the structure, rather than editing one query that happens to use it. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions or naming the alternative tools an agent could pick instead.

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