bw_trfn_switch_runtime

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (switch) and the requirement (lockHandle), but doesn't reveal what happens during the switch, whether it's a persistent mutation, what failure modes exist, or any side effects. The word 'switch' implies a change but the consequences are not described.

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 with zero fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated immediately. Every word earns its place, and the description is easy to scan.

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 7 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema. The description only covers the action and lockHandle requirement, leaving the purposes of id, corrNr, version, timestamp, and outputPath entirely unexplained. It also doesn't specify what the tool returns or whether it persists changes. Given the moderate complexity, this is a significant gap.

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 57%, and the description adds no information beyond the schema. It only repeats the lockHandle requirement, which is already in the schema. The parameters id, corrNr, and timestamp have no descriptions in either the schema or the tool description, so the description fails to compensate for the gap. It adds no semantic value over what the agent already knows from the schema.

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 clearly states the action: 'Switch a transformation between HANA and ABAP runtime.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from other bw_trfn_* tools. However, it doesn't explicitly mention any sibling tools or contrast itself with them, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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 provides only a prerequisite ('Requires an existing lockHandle'), but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It doesn't mention that a lock must be obtained first via another tool, nor does it clarify when ABAP vs HANA runtime is appropriate. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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