mcp-abap-adt

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a deletion check before actual deletion, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on permissions required, whether the deletion is reversible, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps in transparency 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 important behavioral and parameter details in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with two parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic action and key parameter nuance but misses critical details like success/error responses, side effects, or system-specific constraints, which are important for safe invocation.

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 minimal value by mentioning the transport request's optionality for $TMP objects, but it does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema describes, such as format constraints or examples not covered.

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') and resource ('ABAP data element from the SAP system'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like CreateDataElement or UpdateDataElement. It also specifies the scope ('Includes deletion check before actual deletion'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 transport_request parameter ('Optional for local objects ($TMP)'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like DeleteDomain or DeleteTable, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This limits its guidance to parameter usage rather than tool selection.

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