bw_infoobject_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. It states the tool validates name availability but does not disclose what happens on validation failure (e.g., error vs. boolean return), whether it checks case sensitivity, or whether it requires an active connection. The behavior is minimally described but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful detail, though conciseness itself is good.

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 simple validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly adequate but leaves key gaps: no mention of return value/behavior on invalid names, no naming constraints, and no context on when validation is needed. Sibling tools show a family of validation tools, so more context would help an agent choose 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'name' parameter. The description only says 'a new InfoObject name' is validated, which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's bare 'name' string. It does not clarify naming rules, length limits, or allowed characters.

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 verb ('Validate') and resource ('new InfoObject name'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bw_adso_validate_new_name or bw_area_validate_new_name, but the resource type (InfoObject) is distinct enough in the name.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bw_infoobject_validate_exists or other validation tools. The description implies a pre-creation validation use case but does not state it explicitly or mention any exclusions.

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