ebms_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers strong transparency: it discloses the HTTP POST method, the fact that EBMS rejects even an empty {} for no-dialog commands, server-side allow-list restrictions (nothing that posts, processes, pays or sends), and that commands return little data. This gives an agent a clear behavioral profile before invoking.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, endpoint, body rules, restrictions, and return behavior are packed into a compact, front-loaded description with no redundancy. The critical nuance about omitting the body is stated early, and the allow-list restriction is explained clearly.

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 5 parameters, a nested body, and no output schema, but the description covers all tricky invocation details: body omission, allow-list restrictions, and the fact that commands return little, directing the agent to read the record back. This compensates for the missing output schema and leaves the agent well-equipped to call the tool correctly.

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, but the description adds meaningful nuance: it explicitly says to omit the body for no-dialog commands and that EBMS rejects even {}, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Dialog fields, only for commands that have a dialog.' It also adds the configured-company/sandbox restriction and gives concrete command values for the command parameter.

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, 'Run a bound action on one record,' and gives the exact endpoint pattern, POST /ENTITY('<AUTOID>')/Model.Entities.<Command>. Concrete examples like MarkAllAsShipped and ChangeCustomer differentiate this from sibling tools such as ebms_write or ebms_get, so an agent can identify its purpose without opening the schema.

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 explains when the command will be refused (unconfigured company, non-sandbox during testing, actions not on the allow-list) and advises reading the record back afterwards, implying a follow-up read via another tool. However, it never explicitly names sibling tools or states when to choose this over ebms_write/ebms_get; the alternative usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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