UpdateBehaviorDefinition

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only notes that it modifies behavior (CRUD, etc.). It omits side effects like deactivation of existing behavior, authorization requirements, transactional behavior, or error conditions. The activation parameter is mentioned in schema but not in description.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. First sentence states the core action, second adds domain context. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but overall efficient and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema and limited behavioral context. The description does not explain return values, error handling, or prerequisites like locking and transport requirements. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, more completeness is expected.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about what the source code affects (RAP behaviors), but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond schema descriptions. It adds minimal additional meaning, meeting the minimum expectation.

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 updates source code of an ABAP Behavior Definition (BDEF), and distinguishes from sibling tools like CreateBehaviorDefinition and DeleteBehaviorDefinition. It specifies the domain (RAP business object behavior) and lists affected aspects (CRUD, validations, etc.), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implies usage for modifying existing BDEFs but does not explicitly contrast with Create or Delete alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites like locking, transport, or when to avoid using this tool. Given the large sibling list, more explicit usage direction would be beneficial.

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