ReleaseAsC1

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it discloses the crucial default: 'Always dry_run: true by default', signaling that the tool does not write to SAP unless explicitly overridden. It also names the exact SAP table being modified. It stops short of describing side effects or reversibility, but the key safety behavior is covered.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the core action first, usage context second, and a critical safety note last. No redundant filler; every sentence contributes.

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?

The description provides the action, timing relative to a sibling, and the dry-run default. Its only notable omission is a description of the response or success signal, but the schema's dry_run field covers preview behavior and there is no output schema to explain.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'Z/Y CDS wrapper view' and the dry_run default merely echoes the schema without adding new meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('register'), names the resource (Z/Y CDS wrapper view), the release level (C1), and the target table (ARS_RUNTIME_API_STATE). It also differentiates from the sibling CreateCDSObject by explicitly positioning this tool as the post-creation release step.

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 explicitly states the temporal context 'after CreateCDSObject in P4 flow' and the goal ('so SAP's own ATC tools recognise the wrapper as released'). It does not enumerate when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough to guide the agent.

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