Replace the entire source of an ABAP object, applying a full update. For small changes, use a targeted patch instead of rewriting the whole source.
Replace the whole source of an ABAP object. For a small change prefer patchObjectSource, which reads, edits and writes without sending the entire object.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | ||
| transport | No | ||
| lockHandle | Yes | ||
| objectSourceUrl | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a write operation. The description adds critical behavioral context by warning that it replaces the whole source, which implies overwriting existing content. It doesn't mention lock requirements or response behavior, but the main risk is disclosed.
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 tight, purposeful sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the alternative-tool guidance is separated clearly.
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 description is sufficient for choosing this tool, but it omits the lock prerequisite implied by the required lockHandle parameter and says nothing about the response. For an overwriting operation, that leaves some gaps, though the parameter names and sibling context mitigate them.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies that the source parameter is the complete new source. It doesn't explain objectSourceUrl, lockHandle, or transport beyond what their names suggest.
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 identifies a concrete action ('Replace the whole source') and a specific resource ('ABAP object'), clearly distinguishing it from patchObjectSource, which is named explicitly. This makes the tool's purpose immediately unambiguous.
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 tells the agent when to prefer patchObjectSource for small changes and implies setObjectSource for whole-object replacements. This is direct, actionable routing guidance with no inference required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.