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 key behavioral traits: it manages a lock/unlock process, performs a check, updates definitions, and optionally activates the parent class. However, it lacks details on error handling, permission requirements, side effects, or what happens if activation fails.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key operations. It avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured by separating concerns (e.g., purpose vs. process).

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 is adequate but has gaps. It covers the high-level process (lock, check, update, unlock, activation) but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or system-specific behaviors. Given the complexity, it should provide more context to be fully complete.

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 meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format of definitions_code or implications of activate_on_update). 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 local definitions') and resource ('in an ABAP class'), specifying that definitions include. It distinguishes from siblings like UpdateLocalTypes or UpdateLocalTestClass by focusing on definitions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from UpdateClass, which might also update definitions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like UpdateClass or CreateClass. The description mentions managing lock, check, update, unlock, and optional activation, but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over other update tools in the sibling list.

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