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 and excels. It details the multi-step workflow (lock, update, check, unlock, activate), warns that parameters completely replace existing values, and specifies default activation behavior, covering mutation, safety, and procedural aspects.

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 well-structured with a clear initial statement, a numbered workflow list, and a note. Every sentence adds value (e.g., workflow steps clarify behavior, note warns about replacement), with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core 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 complex mutation tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains the workflow, behavioral traits (replacement, activation), and usage guidance, compensating well for the lack of structured metadata. No output schema means it doesn't need to cover return values.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal param-specific context (e.g., 'complete replacement' implies all parameters are optional but replace existing ones), but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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'), the resource ('existing ABAP domain in SAP system'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like CreateDomain and DeleteDomain. It specifies it's for updating, not creating or deleting.

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 explicitly provides when to use this tool vs alternatives: it mentions 'Use GetDomain first to see current values if needed' and implies it's for existing domains (not creation). It also notes prerequisites like transport requests for transportable packages in the schema.

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