mcp-abap-adt

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a mutation operation ('Update'), uses stateful session with lock/unlock mechanism (important for concurrency), and updates multiple components (main source and include). However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance implications, or what happens on activation failure.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste - first states purpose and scope, second adds important behavioral context about session management. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains what gets updated and session behavior, but lacks information about return values, error conditions, or what 'activate' parameter actually does operationally. Should do more given the 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 all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Update source code') and target resource ('existing ABAP behavior implementation class'), specifying it updates both main source and implementations include. It distinguishes from CreateBehaviorImplementation by focusing on updates, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools like UpdateClass or UpdateBehaviorDefinition.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'existing' class and stateful session, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like UpdateBehaviorDefinition or UpdateClass. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated beyond the class must exist.

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