UpdateTable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses locking and unlocking behavior and optional activation, but does not mention what happens to existing table data, permissions required, or potential side effects. This is adequate but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 main description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. The parameter descriptions in the schema are long but necessary for correctness. Overall efficient with no wasted text.

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 and 4 parameters, the description covers the operation well. However, it does not describe the return value (e.g., success/failure indication) or error conditions, which would be helpful for completeness. The parameter guidance is thorough.

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 schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters, but the description adds significant value: for 'ddl_code' it provides detailed syntax guidance (MANDT vs abap.clnt, annotation preservation), for 'table_name' it confirms existence requirement, for 'transport_request' it clarifies optionality, and for 'activate' it states the default. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Update', the resource 'DDL source code of an existing ABAP table', and includes the process steps (locks, uploads, unlocks). It distinguishes from sibling tools like CreateTable by specifying 'modify existing tables without re-creating metadata'.

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 gives clear context: 'Use this to modify existing tables without re-creating metadata.' It implicitly differentiates from CreateTable, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the primary use case.

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