editObject

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

Goes well beyond annotations: it discloses no-rollback behavior, that the source remains in the inactive version on failure, the lock-before-activation ordering constraint, the need for an empty inactive list, and that dryRun avoids locking. Annotations only carry minimal readOnly/destructive hints, so the description does the heavy lifting.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and covering ordering, failure, rollback, and dryRun. No filler, though the length is justified by the complexity.

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 complex multi-step mutation with no output schema, it explains ordering, failure semantics, and result assurance, but stops short of detailing the response structure beyond 'the answer says exactly how far it got.' A bit more on the return shape would make it fully 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 covers 100% of 7 parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds only dryRun context ('see the diff without locking anything'), while other behavioral notes are general rather than parameter-specific. 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?

Description begins 'The whole edit in one call: lock, patch, unlock, activate and verify,' naming the specific composite operation and the ABAP object resource. This differentiates it from single-step siblings like lock, patchObjectSource, and activateObjects by positioning it as the bundled sequence.

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 explains this is 'the sequence a change to an ABAP object needs' and warns steps can fail individually, implying use for complete edits. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or says when to use the individual siblings instead, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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