createDataElement

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: nothing is rolled back if a step fails, the answer reports each step, labels are cut to SAP's per-label length limits, and the language defaults to the logon language rather than EN (which would hide labels from developers in other languages). This is rich context well beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and pipeline; the most important behavioral caveats (no rollback, createObject alternative) come early. It is moderately long but every sentence carries information, and none of it repeats the schema.

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 21-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, the type exclusivity rule, rollback behavior, label truncation, and the language default. The schema itself is rich at 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat parameter definitions. Slightly more detail on the return/report structure would push it higher, but it is substantially complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter individually. The description adds workflow-level meaning (the domain/dataType mutual exclusivity, the label-filling behavior) but does not add per-parameter detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a DDIC data element') and enumerates the full pipeline it performs (validate, create, lock, write type and four labels, unlock, activate). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling createObject by noting that createObject leaves an element with no type that cannot be activated, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Names the alternative (createObject) and the exact condition that selects it — createDataElement gives the type and definition in one call, createObject leaves the element typeless. Also states that type is either a domain or a built-in ABAP type, not both, which routes correct parameter choice.

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