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 usefully mentions the 'deletion check before actual deletion' which adds important safety context, and clarifies the transport request requirement for different object types. However, it doesn't describe error conditions, permissions needed, 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose and includes the safety check, while the second provides crucial usage guidance about transport requests. No wasted words or redundant 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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the main action and key parameter usage, but doesn't address what the tool returns, error handling, or the full implications of deleting an ABAP structure in an SAP system context.

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, both parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds some value by mentioning the transport request context for '$TMP objects', but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. 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 an ABAP structure from the SAP system') and resource ('ABAP structure'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'DeleteTable' or 'DeleteClass' by specifying the exact object type. It goes beyond just restating the name by including the deletion check and transport request context.

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 about when to use the transport_request parameter ('Optional for local objects ($TMP)'), which helps differentiate usage scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'DeleteLocalDefinitions' or provide explicit exclusions for non-structure objects.

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