DeleteServiceDefinition

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions a deletion check before actual deletion and transport request optionality for $TMP objects. However, it omits details such as required authorizations, reversibility, impact on dependent objects, or error handling. The description covers basic traits but is not sufficiently rich.

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-loading the primary action in the first sentence and adding essential details in the second. No superfluous information. Every part earns its place, making it concise and efficient.

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 relative simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the action and key nuances (deletion check, transport optionality). However, it lacks information about return values, success/failure indicators, or what happens if the deletion check fails. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for an agent to predict all outcomes.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds some value by explaining when transport_request is optional (for $TMP objects), but does not provide additional meaning for service_definition_name beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description marginally enriches parameter understanding.

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 tool deletes an ABAP service definition from the SAP system, using specific verb (Delete) and resource (service definition). It mentions a deletion check and transport request flexibility, which adds precision. Though sibling tools exist for other object types, the name and description make the target unambiguous.

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 context about when to use (deleting a service definition) and mentions the deletion check and transport request optionality, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. It does not compare with sibling delete tools, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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