UpdateFunctionGroup

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It discloses stateful session and lock/unlock mechanism, which is helpful. However, it omits other important traits such as error handling (what if function group doesn't exist?), authorization requirements, and whether the operation is reversible. Thus moderate transparency.

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 sentences front-load the main purpose and provide key context (no source code, stateful session). No extraneous information. Efficiency is high.

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, the description should hint at return values or error conditions. It does not. While the core purpose is clear, the agent lacks complete context about what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure indication) and potential side effects beyond locking. Incomplete for a 3-parameter tool.

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 parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no new semantics beyond confirming that the function group must exist. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for any gaps.

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?

Description clearly states it updates metadata (description) of an existing ABAP function group. It distinguishes from siblings like CreateFunctionGroup, DeleteFunctionGroup, and ReadFunctionGroup by focusing on update, and clarifies that function groups are containers without direct source code update, avoiding confusion with UpdateFunctionModule.

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?

Description implies when to use (for metadata updates only, not source code) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools like UpdateFunctionModule. The statement about function groups being containers without source code provides some guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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