Preview ABAP Refactoring

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description only confirms 'without changing SAP source', adding minimal value beyond annotations. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., auth needs, side effects) are disclosed.

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?

A single sentence efficiently communicates the core purpose without waste. It is front-loaded and scannable.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks parameter explanations and usage context. Given the tool's complexity (13 params, various refactoring kinds), the description is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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% and the description provides no explanation of parameters. With 13 parameters, the agent must rely solely on the names and types, which is inadequate for correct invocation.

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 it previews an ABAP refactoring plan without changing source. The verb 'preview' and resource 'ABAP refactoring plan' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling 'sap.refactor.execute' by noting no changes.

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 previewing refactorings but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like 'sap.refactor.execute'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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