prepare

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds valuable behavioral details: the 30-min TTL for the groundingToken, its requirement for writes under a config flag, and the fact that the response embeds full parameter contracts, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 densely informative but well-structured with bolded mode names and bullet points. It front-loads the core purpose and TTL requirement, and every sentence serves a distinct explanatory purpose without redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the kinds of outputs for each mode (signature, wrappers, eligibility, collision check, naming, etc.). It also explains the groundingToken's role, providing sufficient context for an agent to anticipate what the tool returns and when to invoke it.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds useful cross-tool semantics (e.g., objectName 'same value you would pass to d365fo_file create'), notes that operation's full contract returns in the response, and explains mode-specific defaults, enhancing the schema's field descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a 'ONE-call context aggregator' that prepares grounded context for change or create operations. It specifies the exact two modes (change/create) and what each delivers, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the analyze→search→info→generate loop seen in sibling tools.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: it replaces a multi-step loop and is required for writes when GROUNDING_ENFORCE=true. It explains when to choose 'change' vs 'create', and each mode's purpose is spelled out, giving the agent explicit decision criteria.

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