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. It discloses that the tool performs a deletion check before actual deletion and mentions transport request handling, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what happens to dependent objects, leaving gaps for a destructive operation.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by two concise sentences that add critical behavioral details without waste. Every sentence earns its place by enhancing understanding of the tool's operation.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic operation and some behavioral traits (deletion check, transport handling), but lacks information on return values, error conditions, or security implications, which are important for such a tool.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by implying the tool's purpose relates to these parameters but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies.

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 ('Delete an ABAP behavior implementation') and resource ('from the SAP system'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like DeleteBehaviorDefinition or DeleteClass 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 implementations) and mentions optional transport requests for $TMP objects, which helps differentiate from other deletion tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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