createInclude

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is minimal. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains the failure mode of the alternative (createObject), the backend rejection, and the fact that this tool posts the include document together with its context reference. It doesn't fully disclose response behavior or side effects, but it goes 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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, the alternative is named, and the technical reason is given in one clause. Every sentence 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?

For a creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key context: what it creates, why it exists, and how it differs from the sibling. It doesn't describe the response format or error cases, but the annotations already indicate it's not read-only and not destructive, and the schema covers all parameters. The main gap is the lack of return-value information, but that's minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds context for mainProgram ('This is the reference createObject fails to send'), which is valuable, but it doesn't add meaning for the other parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('report include (PROG/I)'), and explicitly distinguishes it from createObject. It also explains the underlying reason (abap-adt-api builds the creation body without the main program reference, causing backend rejection). This is a clear, specific purpose that an agent can act on.

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 explicitly says 'Use this instead of createObject for includes' and explains why createObject fails (400/500 regardless of parameters). This is a direct when-to-use and when-not-to-use instruction with a named alternative. It also notes that the tool posts the include document with its context reference, which clarifies the correct usage path.

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