mcp-abap-adt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies mutation, the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the update is reversible, what happens to existing metadata, error conditions, or system impact. It also doesn't address the activation behavior mentioned in the schema's 'activate' parameter.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes successful execution, what errors might occur, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of updating ABAP metadata with transport and activation considerations, more context is needed.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already documented in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like how lock_handle interacts with transport_request) or provide examples of valid source_code format.

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') and resource ('source code of an ABAP Metadata Extension'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'Update' siblings like UpdateBehaviorDefinition or UpdateClass, which would require mentioning what makes metadata extensions unique.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools including CreateMetadataExtension and DeleteMetadataExtension, there's no indication of prerequisites, when updates are appropriate versus creation/deletion, or how this relates to other metadata operations.

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