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 and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that a 'deletion check' occurs before actual deletion and clarifies the optionality of transport_request for specific object types. This goes beyond the basic 'delete' action implied by the name, though it doesn't cover aspects like error handling or confirmation prompts.

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 core action and includes a key behavioral detail (deletion check), and the second clarifies parameter usage. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the main action and key behavioral trait (deletion check), but doesn't address potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens post-deletion (e.g., confirmation, system refresh). Given the complexity of deletion in an SAP context, 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 already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the optionality of transport_request for $TMP objects, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or semantic details beyond what the schema states. 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 an ABAP class') and resource ('from the SAP system'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'DeleteBehaviorDefinition' or 'DeleteTable' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools beyond naming the resource.

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 some context about when to use the transport_request parameter ('optional for $TMP objects'), which implies usage for local vs. transportable objects. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. other deletion tools) or mention prerequisites like permissions or system state.

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