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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the 'stateful session with proper lock/unlock mechanism', which hints at concurrency handling and potential side effects. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what 'update' entails beyond source code changes.

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 core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context from behavioral details, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and hints at behavioral traits but lacks details on prerequisites, side effects, or return values. Given the complexity of updating ABAP objects, more guidance would be beneficial.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify the 'stateful session' impact on parameters). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 source code') and target resource ('existing ABAP service definition'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'UpdateServiceBinding' or 'UpdateBehaviorDefinition', though the resource type is implied.

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 (e.g., 'CreateServiceDefinition' for new definitions or other update tools for different ABAP objects). It mentions a 'stateful session with proper lock/unlock mechanism' but doesn't explain prerequisites or when this approach is necessary.

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