UpdateMetadataExtension

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the effect ('modifies...') but does not mention activation behavior, locking, or transport requirements, though these are hinted in the schema parameters. The description adds context about the type of changes but lacks depth on operational traits.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states the core action, the second elaborates on the scope of modifications. Every word adds value, and the information is front-loaded. No redundancy or extraneous content.

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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose but lacks details on side effects (e.g., activation defaults, locking) and usage constraints. It is adequate but leaves some gaps that could be filled by referencing the schema's hints more explicitly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It remains at baseline as no additional parameter context is given.

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's purpose: 'Update source code of an ABAP Metadata Extension (DDLX).' It further details what modifications are made ('Fiori UI annotations, field labels, search help, and list/object page layout for CDS views'), providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like CreateMetadataExtension or ReadMetadataExtension.

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 modifying existing metadata extensions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like CreateMetadataExtension (for new ones) or DeleteMetadataExtension. No guidance on prerequisites, required permissions, or when not to use it is provided. Given the large sibling list, explicit 'when-to-use' would improve clarity.

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