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 does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it describes the multi-step process ('Manages lock, update, unlock, and optional activation'), which goes beyond simple deletion. It also provides important context about ABAP version compatibility. It doesn't mention error handling or permissions requirements.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and mechanism, while the second provides important contextual information. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the behavioral aspects (lock/update/unlock flow, activation option, version compatibility). It explains what happens during execution but doesn't describe the return value or error conditions, which would be helpful given the absence of output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, but it does provide overall context about what the tool does with those parameters.

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 local macros'), target resource ('from an ABAP class'), and mechanism ('by clearing the macros include'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'DeleteLocalDefinitions' or 'DeleteLocalTypes' by focusing specifically on macros.

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 implies usage context through the note about macro support in older vs newer ABAP versions, which helps determine when this tool is applicable. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'UpdateLocalMacros' or provide clear exclusion criteria.

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