mcp-abap-adt

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 'Create' implies a write operation, but fails to mention critical details such as required permissions, whether the creation is transactional or reversible, potential side effects (e.g., activation impacts), or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clearly stating the tool's purpose.

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 complexity of creating a BDEF in SAP (a write operation with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., activation consequences, error handling), usage context, and output expectations. While the schema covers parameters, the description does not compensate for missing annotations or provide a complete picture for safe and effective use.

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 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters (e.g., explaining relationships like 'name' typically matching 'root_entity', or the significance of 'implementation_type'). Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.

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 ('Create a new') and resource ('ABAP Behavior Definition (BDEF) in SAP system'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'CreateBehaviorImplementation' or 'UpdateBehaviorDefinition', which would require mentioning what makes a BDEF distinct or when to create versus update.

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. For example, it does not specify prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing root entity), contrast with 'UpdateBehaviorDefinition' for modifications, or mention sibling tools like 'CreateBehaviorImplementation' for related tasks. The description lacks any context for tool selection.

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