bc_wizard_navigate

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 internal button identification by icon resource, response fields (fields, availableNav, closed flag), and lifecycle behavior (wizard closes itself, pageContextId invalid). This is rich, non-obvious context that an agent needs.

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?

Although three paragraphs, every sentence carries unique value—usage, logic, warnings, workflow, and an example. No filler, front-loaded with purpose.

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 two-parameter navigation tool, the description covers prerequisites, response shape, invalidation, and exclusions. Without an output schema, it mentions response fields and closed flag, which is sufficient.

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% with clear descriptions for both action (enum with semantics) and pageContextId. The description adds workflow context but not new parameter syntax; it repeats the enum values without going beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 pair ('Drive a Business Central NavigatePage / wizard by semantic step') and explicitly contrasts with bc_execute_action for non-wizard pages, distinguishing it from siblings. This makes the 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?

States exactly when to use it ('Use after bc_open_page... isModal: true and pageType: "NavigatePage"') and provides explicit exclusions ('Do NOT use this for non-wizard pages -- use bc_execute_action instead'). Also warns about when to use 'finish' over 'next' based on availableNav.

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