UpdateLocalDefinitions

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

The description mentions lock, check, update, unlock, and optional activation, which adds behavioral context beyond the schema. Since no annotations are provided, this transparency is useful but incomplete (e.g., no mention of destructive potential or permissions).

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the phrase 'definitions include' is unclear and could be considered a minor drafting issue, not a conciseness fault. Overall, it is 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 modifies local definitions and has 4 parameters, the description covers the process (lock, check, update, unlock, activation) but lacks details about prerequisites, error handling, or return values. Without an output schema, more context would be beneficial.

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. The description does not add meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. The phrase 'definitions include' is ambiguous and does not enhance 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 updates local definitions in an ABAP class. It includes the verb 'Update' and the resource 'local definitions', making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like UpdateClass or DeleteLocalDefinitions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as UpdateClass (which updates the entire class) or UpdateLocalMacros. It lacks explicit context for usage or alternatives.

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