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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a destructive operation ('Delete') but doesn't specify if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires special permissions, or has side effects. No rate limits, authentication needs, or response format are mentioned.

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 action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, potential errors, or system implications. Given the complexity of deleting a global class in an ABAP environment, more context about transport requests and dependencies would be helpful.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, constraints, or interactions between class_name and transport_request). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 resource ('a CDS unit test class (global class)'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like DeleteLocalTestClass by specifying 'global class', but doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools like DeleteUnitTest or DeleteClass.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like DeleteUnitTest, DeleteClass, or DeleteLocalTestClass. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or typical scenarios for deleting a CDS unit test class.

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