Refactor ABAP Code

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that execute requires a fresh plan and confirmation, and implies preview actions are safe. It does not fully disclose behavior for all actions, such as prerequisites or side effects beyond deletion.

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 with no filler. First sentence lists actions, second provides an execution rule. Both sentences earn their place.

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 high parameter count (15), no output schema, and multiple actions, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain how to use each action, required parameters per action, or return values. Only a single constraint on execution is given.

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?

With 15 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description adds no meaning for any parameter. It only indirectly mentions 'confirmation' but fails to describe the role of action, fileUri, line, column, etc. This is a critical gap.

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 explicitly lists the specific refactoring actions (rename, package move, method extraction, etc.) and distinguishes the tool from sibling tools focused on debugging, analysis, or activation. The verb 'refactor' is broad but the enumeration clarifies scope.

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 a clear constraint: 'Execute only a fresh plan and copy its exact confirmation value.' This is a specific usage rule for the execute action. However, it does not compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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