Preview ABAP Version Restore

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'preview'—it doesn't state what the preview returns (e.g., diff, changed objects), whether it makes any changes (though implied by annotations), or what limitations exist. Given the annotations, a moderate score is appropriate, but the description fails to enrich the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 extremely short (one sentence), but this is under-specification rather than admirable conciseness. The sentence merely restates the title and adds no substantive information. It does not front-load any critical detail beyond the title, so the brevity is not an asset.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters, an output schema, and sibling tools for executing or inspecting versions, this description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the preview, what information it returns, how it relates to restore.execute, or any nuances of its usage. Even with an output schema, the description must provide enough context for an agent to decide when and how to use the tool; it fails to do so.

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 mentions no parameters at all. With 10 parameters including required fields like systemId, objectName, and versionNumber, the description provides no meaning or context for any of them. It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent without adequate information to construct valid calls.

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 'Preview restoration of one historical revision' is nearly a tautology of the title 'Preview ABAP Version Restore'. It does identify the action (preview) and object (restoration of one revision), but adds no detail about what the preview shows or what makes it distinct from similar operations like version.history.read. The verb is somewhat specific, but the description fails to convey the tool's specific output or purpose beyond what the name already states.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sap.version.restore.execute or sap.version.history.read. The description does not mention that this is a safe, non-destructive preview to run before an actual restore, nor any prerequisites or context for using it. It provides no explicit context for selection.

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