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 adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that the operation uses 'stateful session with proper lock/unlock mechanism,' which informs about concurrency and session management. It also clarifies that function groups are metadata-only containers, helping set expectations about what can be updated.

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: the first states the core purpose and clarifies the resource type, while the second adds important behavioral context. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the resource nature and session mechanism. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens to existing metadata not mentioned, though the high schema coverage helps compensate.

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 all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it does provide context about function groups that helps understand the parameters' purpose, meeting 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 ('Update metadata (description)'), target resource ('existing ABAP function group'), and scope ('function groups are containers for function modules and don't have source code to update directly'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like UpdateFunctionModule that might modify source code.

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 explaining what function groups are and mentioning they don't have source code to update directly, which helps differentiate from other update tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like UpdateFunctionModule or when not to use it.

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