mcp-abap-adt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions behavioral steps ('lock, check, update, unlock, and optional activation'), which adds some context about the transactional nature and activation option. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, or what 'check' entails, leaving 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral context. Both sentences are relevant, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from 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 provides basic purpose and process but lacks completeness. It doesn't cover error cases, return values, or detailed behavioral traits, which are important given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no extra details on format or constraints for 'local_types_code'), 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 action ('Update local types') and resource ('in an ABAP class'), with specific mention of 'implementations include' clarifying scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'UpdateLocalDefinitions' or 'UpdateLocalTestClass' by focusing on types, but doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

Usage is implied through the description of the update process ('Manages lock, check, update, unlock, and optional activation'), suggesting it's for modifying existing local types. However, no explicit guidance is provided on when to use this versus alternatives like 'UpdateClass' or 'UpdateLocalDefinitions', nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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