build_d365fo_project

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds valuable context beyond that: it blocks until completion, the wait parameter behavior, and the fact that it compiles the entire model. It also explains the fullBuild stale-symbol fix, which is behavioral detail not present in annotations. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key usage constraints. It avoids redundant elaboration and fits within two clauses while covering the most critical behavioral notes. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 build tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational knowledge: blocking behavior, polling guidance, fullBuild purpose, and model scope. It does not explicitly mention the return format, but the schema's wait parameter details that, and the description's 'call once' implies a final result. The coverage is strong for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description enhances parameter understanding by explaining wait:false as legacy polling mode and highlighting fullBuild's role in fixing stale-symbol errors. It adds practical context that the schema alone does not convey, raising the 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 builds a D365FO model using xppc.exe, and explicitly distinguishes it from building a single project by noting it compiles the entire model. This accurately separates it from sibling tools like verify_d365fo_project or run_bp_check, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit usage instructions: call once per build, do not poll, and explains that wait:false is legacy polling mode. It also mentions fullBuild for fixing stale-symbol errors, providing concrete guidance on when to use that parameter. However, it does not directly state when to prefer alternative tools, though the clear purpose implicitly handles that.

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