bw_adso_validate_new_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the validation purpose. It does not say whether the tool is read-only, what 'available' means (e.g., duplicate name, naming convention), what it returns, or whether any side effects occur.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter validation tool.

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 no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to explain return behavior and call context, but it does neither. An agent cannot tell what a successful or failed validation looks like, or what prerequisites exist, making the definition under-specified.

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?

The schema has one undocumented string parameter and 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds only that the parameter is an ADSO name, but gives no format, length, character restrictions, or distinction between technical name and description.

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 clear verb ('Validate'), resource ('ADSO name'), and condition ('available'), so an agent can tell this is a name-availability check. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling validation tools like bw_adso_validate_info_area or bw_area_validate_new_name, but the resource and intent are unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bw_adso_validate_info_area, bw_adso_validate_template, or bw_infoobject_validate_new_name. The description implies it should be used before creating or naming an ADSO, but this is not stated explicitly.

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