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 hints at transactional behavior and potential side effects, but it lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the update fails. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 main action ('Update a local test class') and includes key behavioral aspects. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured by separating the action from the managed steps for better clarity.

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 transactional steps), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should explain more about the update process, success/failure outcomes, or return values to adequately guide an AI agent, but it only provides a high-level overview.

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, test_class_code, transport_request, activate_on_update) with clear descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 a local test class') and resource ('in an ABAP class'), specifying it manages lock, check, update, unlock, and optional activation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'UpdateClass' or 'UpdateUnitTest', which reduces the score from 5 to 4.

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 mentions managing lock, check, update, unlock, and optional activation, which implies usage in a transactional context, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'UpdateClass' or 'CreateUnitTest'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leading to minimal guidance.

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