createFunctionModule

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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, annotations indicate a write operation but don't detail side effects. The description compensates by stating it creates, writes, activates, and verifies, and explains why the interface is built from data (ADT keeps it in source text). It also discloses the transport request requirement. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense sentences with zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the two critical constraints (group existence and transport requirement). Every clause earns its place, and it's concise for a tool with 11 parameters.

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 write operation with complex parameters, the description covers the essential workflow (create/write/activate/verify) and prerequisites. The schema fully documents all parameters, and the description adds the mechanism and constraints. It doesn't describe return values, but there's no output schema, and the behavior is well covered. A complete guide for calling 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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds a high-level explanation that the signature is passed as data and the ABAP interface is built here, helping the agent understand how the parameter arrays map to the source. While it doesn't enumerate parameters, it adds conceptual value beyond the schema, justifying a score above the baseline 3.

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 the tool creates a function module in an existing group, combining signature and body in one call (create, write, activate, verify). It differentiates from sibling createAndWrite by explicitly referencing it for group creation, so an agent can distinguish the two operations.

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?

Provides clear prerequisites: the group must exist, and a group outside $TMP requires a transport request. It names createAndWrite as the alternative for creating groups, giving context for when to use this tool vs. another. However, it doesn't list other alternatives (e.g., getFunctionModule) or explicit 'when not to use' conditions, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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