Create ABAP Object Programmatically

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which match the description's 'create' action. The description adds value by specifying create-time source limitations and transport request requirements, but it does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects like overwriting behavior or permissions. Overall, it complements annotations without contradiction.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose in the first sentence and key constraints in the second. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value.

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's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It omits explanations of ADT, valid objectType values, parentName, additionalOptions semantics, and return behavior. The description covers only basic constraints, leaving many details for the agent to infer or discover independently.

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 description coverage is low (33%), and the description only clarifies the constraints on 'source' and 'activate' parameters. It mentions transport request requirements but does not explain other parameters like 'parentName', 'additionalOptions', or their subfields. The description partially compensates for the low schema coverage but leaves significant gaps.

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 'create' and resource 'ADT repository object'. It mentions specific limitations (source writing only for BDEF/BDO) and transport request requirement, distinguishing it from other ABAP tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_test_include, but the overall purpose is clear.

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 guidelines on when to use transport requests for non-local packages and notes that source writing/activation are only for BDEF/BDO. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, but the constraints are helpful for appropriate usage context.

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