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 'includes deletion check before actual deletion,' which adds useful context about safety or validation steps. However, it lacks details on permissions required, whether the deletion is reversible, error handling, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a destructive operation.

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 purpose in the first sentence and adds a clarifying second sentence about the deletion check and transport request. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, 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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and some behavioral context (deletion check), but lacks details on outcomes, error conditions, or prerequisites. Given the complexity of deletion in an SAP context, more information would be beneficial to fully guide an agent.

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 hinting at the 'transport_request' usage for $TMP objects, but does not provide additional syntax, format, or semantic details beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high 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') and target resource ('ABAP service definition from the SAP system'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'DeleteServiceBinding' or 'DeleteBehaviorDefinition' by specifying the exact object type. It also mentions the inclusion of a deletion check, which adds specificity beyond just the name.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (deleting ABAP service definitions) and includes guidance on the optional 'transport_request' parameter for $TMP objects, which helps differentiate usage scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name specific alternatives among the many sibling delete tools.

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