bw_update_transformation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a lock_handle for activation, that routine generates ABAP class automatically, that formula is natively evaluated, and that constant ignores source_field. It also notes ASCII-only constraint for AMDP. However, it doesn't explicitly state permissions needed or that the tool modifies an existing transformation (implied), and doesn't indicate if it is destructive (likely yes).

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main action. It uses clear bullet-like prose for rule types. However, it is somewhat long (over 500 words) and could be more concise by using a list format. Still, every sentence adds value, and the structure aids readability.

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 10 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers all rule types, parameter interactions, and the return value (lock_handle). It could mention that the transformation must already exist (implied by 'update') and that activation is required, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: for each rule_type it explains behavioral implications, source_field requirements, and formula syntax with operators. It also clarifies the role of additional_source_fields and constant_value usage. This adds significant value for parameter understanding.

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 it maps a source field to a target InfoObject or converts existing rules, with specific rule types like direct, routine, formula, constant. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bw_create_transformation (creation) and bw_set_transformation_routine (which only sets routines). The verb 'update' and resource 'transformation' are explicit.

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 provides detailed when-to-use guidance for each rule type, including source_field requirements per type (e.g., required for routine/formula on StepNoUpdate, ignored for constant). It also gives context on when source_field is needed or ignored. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like bw_set_transformation_routine, though the sibling list implies differentiation.

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