UpdateClass

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a multi-step process (locks, checks, updates, unlocks, optionally activates), which adds value beyond 'update'. However, it lacks details on authorization requirements, error handling, or side effects.

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 a single sentence with a pithy list of steps. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information. Every part 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a reasonably complete picture: it covers the update operation, the multi-step process, and the optional activation. It does not mention transport request dependency (covered by schema) or class existence requirement, but these are implied.

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. The description does not add parameter-specific context beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions process steps but does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'source code of an existing ABAP class', distinguishing it from sibling tools like CreateClass or DeleteClass. It also outlines the process steps (locks, checks, updates, unlocks, optionally activates), adding specificity.

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 existing classes by stating 'existing ABAP class', but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like CreateClass, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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