abap_enh

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds optional activation and the source-body scope limit. However, most behavioral details (create ops always $TMP and activate, delete irreversibility, read-only discovery) live only in the operation schema, not in the description; the description itself does not go much beyond the annotations plus the abap_write warning. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the default operation is front-loaded, the key exception follows immediately, and the pointer to operation is efficient. Every phrase earns its 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?

The schema is rich enough to support correct invocation, and the description covers the default op plus a critical exception. But with 11 operations, nested parameters, and no output schema, a one-sentence summary of the tool's breadth (creating spots/BAdIs, setting filters, hooks, deletion) would help an agent recognize when abap_enh applies. The current description leans heavily on the agent opening the operation enum.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the description's 'root adtcore:description' and 'existing' wording adds only minor context on top of the already-detailed schema. It does not clarify any parameter beyond what the schema states.

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 first sentence names the default action (writes the root adtcore:description) and the target object types (ENHO/XH, ENHO/XHH, ENHS/XS), so the primary behavior is clear. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from abap_write for plug-in source bodies. However, it does not provide a high-level statement of the tool's full 11-operation role, leaving the overall purpose to be inferred from the operation enum in the schema.

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?

It explicitly says not to use this tool for ENHO/XHH plug-in source bodies and routes that case to abap_write. The phrase 'See operation for the other ops' directs the agent to the operation enum for the remaining variants. Broader when-to-use-versus-sibling guidance is absent, but the most important exclusion is covered.

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