mcp-abap-adt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the multi-step process (create, activate, verify), it doesn't describe what 'activate' entails, whether this requires specific SAP authorizations, if the operation is transactional, what happens on failure, or what verification involves. For a complex 16-parameter creation tool in an enterprise system, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying what's being created, where, and the key steps involved. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the 'what' from the 'how' aspects for even better clarity.

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 complex SAP data element creation tool with 16 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a successful creation returns, what errors might occur, authorization requirements, or system-specific constraints. The multi-step process mentioned ('create, activate, and verify') hints at complexity but doesn't provide enough operational context for confident tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 16 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work, even though the description doesn't compensate with additional semantic context.

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 specific action ('Create a new ABAP data element'), the target system ('in SAP system'), and the comprehensive process ('with all required steps: create, activate, and verify'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'UpdateDataElement' and 'DeleteDataElement' by focusing on initial creation rather than modification or removal.

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 implies usage for creating new data elements, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'CreateDomain' or 'CreateStructure'. It mentions the required steps but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios where this tool is appropriate versus other creation tools in the sibling list.

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