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. It discloses that creation results in an 'initial state' object, implying further configuration is needed via UpdateView, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what 'initial state' entails operationally, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured, with every sentence earning its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete—it covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context (initial state). However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response format, which would be beneficial given the tool's complexity.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 CDS View or Classic View in SAP') and resource ('view object'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'CreateTable' or 'CreateStructure' that create different object types. It also specifies the object state ('initial state'), adding precision.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by stating 'Use UpdateView to set DDL source code afterwards,' directly naming an alternative tool and clarifying the workflow sequence. This helps the agent understand this tool's limited scope versus its sibling.

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