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. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool performs a destructive deletion, manages locking/unlocking for concurrency control, and offers optional activation. It doesn't mention error handling, permissions required, or rate limits, but covers essential mutation behavior adequately.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by transactional details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 provides good context on behavior (locking, activation) and purpose. It could improve by mentioning error cases or return values, but given the schema's full parameter coverage, it's largely complete for agent use.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 a local test class'), the target resource ('from an ABAP class'), and the mechanism ('by clearing the testclasses include'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'DeleteClass' or 'DeleteUnitTest' by focusing specifically on local test classes within a parent class.

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 'Manages lock, update, unlock, and optional activation of parent class,' suggesting it handles transactional safety. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'DeleteUnitTest' or 'DeleteClass,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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