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 mentions that the tool 'Manages lock, update, unlock, and optional activation,' which adds valuable context about the transactional and activation behavior. However, it doesn't cover error handling, permissions required, or what happens to dependent objects.

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 that front-loads the core action and includes essential behavioral context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic operational context (lock/update/unlock/activation) but lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity of modifying ABAP classes, 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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or clarification about the parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between them or usage nuances.

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 local definitions') and target ('from an ABAP class by clearing the definitions include'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like DeleteLocalMacros or DeleteLocalTypes, which handle different aspects of ABAP classes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like DeleteLocalMacros or DeleteLocalTypes, nor does it mention prerequisites or context for usage. It simply describes the operation without indicating appropriate scenarios.

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