UpdateLocalMacros

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

Without annotations, the description attempts to disclose behavior by noting that it manages lock, check, update, unlock, and optional activation. However, it omits details such as failure modes, permission requirements, or side effects of the update.

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 concise at two sentences plus a note, with the primary action stated upfront. The note about version support is relevant but could be more integrated.

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 has four parameters and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, error handling, or what happens after the update, which is important for an update operation.

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 input schema already describes all four parameters sufficiently. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, maintaining the baseline score.

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 macros in an ABAP class, distinguishing it from siblings that update other local artifacts like definitions or test classes. The phrase 'macros include' is slightly unclear but overall the purpose is 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., GetLocalMacros or DeleteLocalMacros). It does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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