businessobject-update

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (flexible inputs), idempotentHint=false (non-idempotent), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it warns about the need to fetch the latest version before updates to avoid conflicts, clarifies that dependencies and tags must be resent during updates or they will be cleared, and specifies that dependencies are REQUIRED for certain API accesses. This enriches the agent's understanding of mutation risks and prerequisites.

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 well-structured with clear sections (attention notes, project assignment rules, example) and uses markdown formatting effectively. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool with 6 parameters, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating some schema-like details. Every sentence adds value, such as warnings about data preservation and project handling.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, critical behavioral nuances, and parameter semantics. However, it lacks details on the response format or error handling, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. The annotations provide safety context, but the description fills in practical gaps well.

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?

With schema description coverage at 67%, the description compensates significantly by explaining parameter semantics not fully covered in the schema. It details the critical role of dependencies (required for Simplifier.Connector.* or Simplifier.BusinessObject.* APIs), provides explicit rules for projectsBefore and projectsAfterChange parameters with creation vs. update scenarios, and includes a practical JSON example. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's basic property 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Create or update a Business Object.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like businessobject-delete, businessobject-function-update, and connector-update by focusing on the core Business Object resource itself rather than functions, connectors, or deletion operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for creating or updating Business Objects. It includes critical warnings about fetching the latest version before updates and resending dependencies/tags to avoid clearing them. It also distinguishes usage between creation (projectsBefore as empty array) and updates (projectsBefore as current assignments), offering clear alternatives within the tool's scope.

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