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 effectively describes the multi-step process ('Locks the structure, uploads new DDL source, and unlocks'), optional activation, and the high-level purpose. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance implications, or specific permission requirements, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and process, followed by the usage context. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 does a good job explaining the process and purpose. However, it lacks details on return values, error conditions, or side effects (e.g., impact on dependent objects), leaving some gaps in completeness for a tool that modifies critical ABAP structures.

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%, providing detailed parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'Optionally activates after update' which aligns with the 'activate' parameter. It does not explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Update DDL source code'), target resource ('existing ABAP structure'), and method ('Locks the structure, uploads new DDL source, and unlocks'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'CreateStructure' by specifying 'existing' structures and 'without re-creating metadata'.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to modify existing structures without re-creating metadata'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'CreateStructure' for new structures). The input schema hints at prerequisites ('Structure must already exist'), but the description itself lacks explicit exclusions.

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