UpdateLocalTestClass

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses the process: lock, check, update, unlock, and optional activation. This informs the agent about the tool's lifecycle, though it could mention potential errors or prerequisites like transport requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence serves a purpose: identifying the tool and summarizing the process. No unnecessary words.

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 complexity (update operation with activation) and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential steps but omits return behavior, error handling, or outcome indication. It is mostly complete for a straightforward mutation tool but could be more explicit.

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 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it repeats 'optional activation of parent class' but does not clarify parameter formats or constraints. This is adequate but not enhanced.

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 specifies the verb 'Update' and the resource 'local test class in an ABAP class', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like UpdateClass or UpdateLocalDefinitions. It also outlines the managed steps (lock, check, update, unlock, optional activation), 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 when to use (to update a local test class), but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among the many sibling update tools. It lacks exclusion criteria like 'use this only for test classes, not for other local code'.

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