bw_adso_save_and_activate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does disclose genuine behavior: the tool locks, PUTs, optionally activates, then unlocks — side effects an agent cannot infer from the schema alone. It also discloses return behavior ('Returns a compact projection') and the hard constraint 'Do not omit both'. It stops short of a 5 because failure/rollback semantics (e.g., what happens if activation fails after PUT) and permission requirements are not disclosed for this mutation tool.

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?

Four sentences in roughly 90 words, with the highest-value summary ('lock → PUT → (optional) activate → unlock') front-loaded first. Every sentence earns its place: workflow, xml guidance, transport constraint, and return behavior. No filler or restatement of schema content.

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 complex mutation tool with 9 parameters, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the three critical decision points an agent must get right: XML source selection, transport provisioning, and output handling. It partially compensates for the missing output schema by describing the compact projection. It is not quite a 5 because error conditions (missing transport failure mode) and post-failure state are left unspecified.

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 78%, near the high-coverage baseline of 3, and the description adds real cross-parameter meaning beyond the schema: the preference rule between xmlPath and xmlContent for large bodies, the XOR constraint between transport and createTransport, and the outputPath tradeoff (compact projection vs full detail). These add value beyond the individual parameter 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 states a specific multi-step workflow — 'One-stop: lock → PUT → (optional) activate → unlock' — with an identifiable resource (ADSO, from the tool name). It is clear about what the tool does, though it never literally says 'save and activate an ADSO' and relies on the name for the resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling save_and_activate family (bw_trfn_save_and_activate, bw_dtp_save_and_activate), so it falls short of full sibling distinction.

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 actionable when-to guidance: 'Prefer xmlPath ... over inline xmlContent for large bodies' and the transport requirement rule ('pass transport=<existing TRKORR> OR createTransport=true ... Do not omit both'), even routing to bw_transport_check for listing requests. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives (e.g., when to use bw_adso_check or bw_adso_create instead), so exclusions are absent.

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