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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it describes the locking/unlocking process, the optional activation step, and the requirement that the table must already exist. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions needed, or system impact.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key behavioral details and usage context in just two sentences, with zero wasted words—every sentence earns its place efficiently.

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 (modifying ABAP tables with locking/unlocking), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good context on behavior and usage but could improve by mentioning potential side-effects, error conditions, or response format to be more complete.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining DDL code format or transport request implications, meeting the baseline for high 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 specific action ('Update DDL source code'), target resource ('existing ABAP table'), and method ('Locks the table, uploads new DDL source, and unlocks'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like CreateTable (which creates new tables) and other update tools for different ABAP objects.

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 tables without re-creating metadata') and mentions an optional activation parameter, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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