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: it's a destructive operation (implied by 'Delete'), includes a safety check ('deletion check before actual deletion'), and mentions transport handling. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or what happens post-deletion.

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 important behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value (deletion check, transport request context) with zero waste, 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 covers the basic operation and key constraints (deletion check, transport rules). However, it lacks details on outcomes, error handling, or system-specific behaviors, leaving some gaps in completeness given the tool's complexity.

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 beyond the schema by implying the tool's purpose relates to these parameters, but does not provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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') and resource ('ABAP table from the SAP system'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like DeleteClass or DeleteView. It also mentions the 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?

It provides clear context for when to use the transport_request parameter (required for transportable objects, optional for local $TMP objects), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like DeleteTable vs. other deletion tools, or mention prerequisites beyond the parameters.

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