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 about the deletion process ('Includes deletion check before actual deletion') and transport request handling, but doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, permissions required, or what happens to dependent objects. It provides some behavioral insight but leaves gaps.

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 extremely efficient - two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial behavioral and parameter context. There's zero wasted verbiage and it's perfectly front-loaded.

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 provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It mentions the deletion check and transport handling, but doesn't address what the tool returns, error scenarios, or system-wide implications. Given the complexity of deleting SAP objects, 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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the transport_request's optional nature for $TMP objects, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 interface') and resource ('from the SAP system'), distinguishing it from other deletion tools like DeleteClass or DeleteTable by specifying the exact object type. It goes beyond the tool name by including additional 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 local objects ($TMP)'), but it doesn't explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus alternatives like DeleteLocalDefinitions or other deletion tools for different object types. It offers some guidance but lacks explicit sibling comparisons.

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