CreateCDSExtension

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 only restates the dry_run default, which is already present in the schema, and does not disclose what happens when dry_run=false (e.g., actual creation in SAP), permissions required, or reversibility. This is a meaningful gap for a mutating 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 two sentences with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded, the usage condition is explicit, and the dry_run default is mentioned succinctly. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite thorough schema coverage, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must do more work. It does not explain what the tool returns in dry_run mode, what happens when dry_run is false, or account for the seemingly unrelated pagination parameters (maxLines, startLine) present in the schema. An agent could call it confidently for a dry run but would lack critical context for a real creation.

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 baseline is 3 even without additional parameter detail in the description. The description does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema, except to emphasize the dry_run default, which is already documented.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Create a CDS View Extension (extend view entity) to add missing fields to an existing SAP standard view.' This clearly differentiates it from the sibling CreateCDSObject, which creates a new CDS object rather than extending an existing standard view.

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?

It provides a clear usage condition: 'Use when a successor view is missing fields needed by the Z object.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to a specific alternative, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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