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' (a safety behavior) and mentions transport request handling. However, it doesn't cover other important behavioral aspects like permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, 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 efficiently structured in two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose and key behavior, while the second provides important parameter guidance. Every word serves a clear purpose.

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 does an adequate job covering the basic purpose and some behavioral context (deletion check, transport handling). However, it lacks important details about what the tool returns, error scenarios, permissions needed, and the implications of deleting a view in an SAP system.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that transport_request is 'optional for $TMP objects,' but this is essentially restating what's in the schema description. No additional parameter semantics are provided 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 specific action ('Delete an ABAP view') and resource ('from the SAP system'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'DeleteTable' or 'DeleteClass' by specifying the exact object type. It also mentions the 'deletion check before actual deletion' which adds specificity beyond just the verb.

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 views) and includes guidance on the optional 'transport_request' parameter for transportable vs. local objects. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling deletion tools.

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