CreateBehaviorDefinition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses upsert semantics ('create or replace') and default activation behavior, but omits prerequisites (auth/transport needs), what happens if a BDEF already exists, and failure modes for non-local packages.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two most decision-relevant constraints (package restriction, default activation). No filler, though the type enumeration mildly duplicates the schema enum.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, constraints, and activation but leaves out permission/transport prerequisites and result behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would want filled.

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 all 7 parameters are already documented by the schema (defaults, enums, naming rule for behavior_name). The description only reinforces the type list and package constraint, adding little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: create/replace a RAP Behavior Definition (BDEF) in SAP. This is clearly distinguishable from read-side siblings like GetBehaviorDefinition and ExportBehaviorDefinitionToFile. An agent can tell what artifact is produced without opening the schema.

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?

Gives real constraints ('Only supports local packages ($TMP, $LOCAL, $-prefixed)') and the supported BDEF kinds, which implies when it can be used. However, it never names an alternative or states when to prefer another tool over this one, so routing guidance is only implied.

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