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 adds useful context about the deletion process ('Includes deletion check before actual deletion') and transport request handling, but does not cover critical aspects like permissions required, error handling, or what happens to dependent objects. It does not contradict annotations.

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—each sentence adds value: the first states the core action and resource, and the second provides key behavioral and usage context. It is front-loaded with the primary 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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and some behavioral context (deletion check, transport rules), but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response format. Given the complexity of deleting system objects, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 both parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it mentions transport request optionality but the schema already states this). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Delete') and target resource ('ABAP behavior definition from the SAP system'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'DeleteBehaviorImplementation' by specifying the exact object type. It goes beyond a tautology by adding context about the deletion process.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (deleting ABAP behavior definitions) and includes guidance on transport request usage ('optional for $TMP objects'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as 'DeleteLocalDefinitions' for local objects.

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