bw_datasource_merge_proposal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool returns merged XML rather than persisting it ('write it back via save_and_activate'), which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, failure conditions, or whether any datasource state is modified before the explicit save step.

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?

Two sentences deliver the purpose, usage preference, return value, and required follow-up action with no filler. The most important behavioral instruction is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 description covers the main action, output, and next step, and the schema adds useful parameter details. However, there is no output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of the required datasource/sourceSystem parameters or edge cases. It is workable but not fully complete for safe invocation.

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 documents xmlPath, xmlContent, and outputPath, but the two required parameters, datasource and sourceSystem, have no descriptions. The description adds meaningful parameter guidance by explaining precedence and recommending outputPath for large merged XML, and it references bw_*_get_xml with outputPath. Still, it does not fully compensate for the required-parameter documentation gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Merge an ODP proposal ... into the current DataSource XML.' It also states the outcome ('returns the merged XML') and the follow-up action, clearly distinguishing it from read-only tools like bw_datasource_get_xml or persistence tools like bw_datasource_save_and_activate.

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 clear context for when this tool is relevant ('after adapter change'), explicitly prefers xmlPath over inline xmlContent, and directs the caller to write the result back via save_and_activate. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use scenarios or name alternative merge tools, but the workflow guidance is strong.

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