Manage ABAP Inactive and Version Source

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context about restoration (which is destructive) but does not elaborate on other behavioral traits like authentication needs or side effects. It provides some value but does not significantly go beyond annotations.

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 a single sentence listing actions, which is concise but lacks structure or priorities. It front-loads the purpose but could be improved by grouping actions or indicating default behavior.

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 (multiple actions, 13 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain action-specific requirements, parameter dependencies, or return values, making it insufficient for correct invocation.

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 0% with 13 parameters, yet the description provides no explanation of any parameter. The baseline requires compensation for low coverage, but the description fails to add meaning, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 lists four specific actions (list inactive objects, read inactive source, preview restore, execute restore) with a verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool's unique purpose among siblings by focusing on inactive and version restoration, unlike get_version_history or manage_transport_requests.

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 managing inactive objects and restoration but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_version_history. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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