mcp-abap-adt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the typical response contains. The description mentions the SAP system context but doesn't explain activation behavior (though the 'activate' parameter hints at it).

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's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the technical context (ABAP Metadata Extension/DDLX, SAP system) without unnecessary elaboration. Every word serves a clear 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?

For a creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a Metadata Extension is used for in SAP, what happens after creation, or typical next steps. While concise, it leaves too much undefined for a tool that creates artifacts in a complex enterprise system.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'transport_request' might be optional for local development), nor does it provide examples or clarify SAP-specific conventions for naming or package structures.

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') and the resource ('new ABAP Metadata Extension (DDLX) in SAP system'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other creation tools by specifying the exact SAP artifact type (Metadata Extension/DDLX), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like CreateBehaviorDefinition or CreateTable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling creation tools (CreateBehaviorDefinition, CreateClass, CreateTable, etc.), there's no indication of what makes a Metadata Extension different or when it's the appropriate choice. No prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases are mentioned.

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