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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the mutation nature ('Update'), stateful session requirements, lock/unlock mechanisms, and URL parameter handling for lock handle and transport number. It doesn't cover error handling, response format, or side effects, but provides substantial operational context beyond basic purpose.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by operational details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential context without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with stateful sessions), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, behavioral mechanisms, and implied constraints. It could be more complete by mentioning response format or error cases, but it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's operation and requirements.

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 no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format constraints for 'source_code' or clarify 'transport_request' usage). 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 ('Update source code'), target resource ('existing ABAP interface'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'CreateInterface' (which creates new interfaces) and 'ReadInterface' (which only reads). It provides a complete verb+resource+scope combination.

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 through 'existing ABAP interface' and 'stateful session with proper lock/unlock mechanism,' suggesting it should be used when modifying an already-created interface. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'UpdateClass' or 'UpdateStructure,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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