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 valuable context beyond the basic 'delete' action by mentioning 'Includes deletion check before actual deletion' and clarifying transport request handling for different object types. However, it does not cover potential side effects, permissions required, or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action and resource, while the second adds critical behavioral context about the deletion check and transport request handling. Every sentence earns its place.

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 does well by explaining the deletion check process and transport request logic. However, it doesn't cover what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation message, error handling) or potential dependencies, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format constraints or provide examples beyond the schema's descriptions). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Delete') and target resource ('ABAP function group from the SAP system'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'DeleteFunctionModule' or 'DeleteClass' by specifying the exact object type. It goes beyond the tool name 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 about when to use the transport_request parameter ('optional for $TMP objects'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'DeleteFunctionModule' or other deletion tools. It implies usage for function groups specifically but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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