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 that the tool performs a 'deletion check before actual deletion' and handles transport requests for certain objects, adding useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, error handling, or what happens post-deletion (e.g., confirmation, rollback options).

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by key behavioral details and parameter guidance in just two sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic operation and some behavioral traits (deletion check, transport handling). However, it lacks details on output (e.g., success/failure indicators), error scenarios, or system-specific constraints, leaving gaps in completeness given the tool's destructive nature.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'Transport request optional for $TMP objects,' which slightly elaborates on the transport_request parameter's usage context but doesn't provide significant additional semantics beyond the schema.

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') and resource ('ABAP metadata extension from the SAP system'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools (e.g., DeleteBehaviorDefinition, DeleteClass) beyond the resource type, which is implied but not contrasted.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the transport_request parameter ('Optional for local objects ($TMP)') and mentions a 'deletion check before actual deletion' as a prerequisite step. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over other delete operations or alternatives for metadata extensions.

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