mcp-abap-adt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions managing lock, check, update, unlock, and optional activation, which adds some behavioral context beyond the basic 'update' action. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error handling, whether changes are reversible, or what the response looks like, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose and key actions, and the second adds important version context. It is front-loaded with essential information and avoids unnecessary details, though the version note could be integrated more smoothly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and some behavioral context (lock/activation flow, version note), but it is incomplete for a mutation tool. It misses details on response format, error conditions, and deeper usage scenarios, which are important for an agent to invoke it correctly without structured guidance.

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 (class_name, macros_code, transport_request, activate_on_update) with descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples for macros_code or details on transport_request usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 macros') and resource ('in an ABAP class'), with specific mention of managing lock, check, update, unlock, and optional activation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'DeleteLocalMacros' by specifying update functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools like 'UpdateLocalDefinitions' or 'UpdateLocalTypes'.

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 for updating macros in ABAP classes and notes version compatibility ('macros are supported in older ABAP versions but not in newer ones'), providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'UpdateLocalDefinitions' or 'UpdateLocalTypes', and does not specify prerequisites or exclusions beyond the version note.

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