bc_navigate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that select does not open or return data, that drill_down returns a new pageContextId and leaves the original page open, that both pages should be closed, and that the tool only works on repeater pages. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 long but every section earns its place. It is organized with action-specific paragraphs, a separate section for section targeting, explicit warnings, and illustrative JSON examples. No redundancy or filler sentences are present.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (two actions, section targeting, page context lifecycle). The description covers prerequisites (pageContextId, bookmark sources), behavior of each action, the need to close both pages, and exclusions. Even without an output schema, it explains return behavior for drill_down and the lack of return for select, making it completely self-contained.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral difference between the two action enum values, clarifying the source of the bookmark (from bc_open_page or bc_read_data), and giving concrete examples of section usage. This elevates it 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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Navigates to a specific record on an open Business Central List or Document page using its bookmark.' It then details two distinct actions (select and drill_down), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like bc_execute_action and bc_lookup.

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 includes explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it warns against using select before actions (pointing to bc_execute_action), says not to use the tool for Card pages, and directs field lookups to bc_lookup. These alternatives are named directly.

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