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. It discloses important behavioral traits: the tool performs a destructive deletion operation, manages transactional elements (lock/update/unlock), and offers optional activation. However, it doesn't cover permission requirements, error conditions, 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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and mechanism, while the second adds important behavioral context. Every element earns its place, though the second sentence could be more structured.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and behavioral context but lacks important details about permissions, error handling, and what 'clearing the implementations include' entails. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps for a deletion operation.

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 adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate 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 local types'), target resource ('from an ABAP class'), and mechanism ('by clearing the implementations include'). It distinguishes from siblings like DeleteLocalDefinitions and DeleteLocalTestClass by specifying the exact type of local component being deleted.

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 DeleteLocalDefinitions or UpdateLocalTypes. It mentions the tool's internal process ('Manages lock, update, unlock, and optional activation') but doesn't indicate appropriate usage contexts or prerequisites.

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