CreateClass

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it does contribute one real behavioral fact: the class is created without a transport assignment (i.e., a non-transportable local object). It omits other behavior an agent would want for a mutation tool – required authorization, error/rollback behavior, whether the class is left inactive by default, and what is returned – leaving it only partly transparent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource comes first and the two constraining qualifiers follow immediately. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 6-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is thin: it leaves unclear what the tool returns (class object, activation status, errors), how auto_activate/preaudit_requested interact with creation, and how the result relates to the CreateClassImplementation/CreateClassTests siblings. The schema covers the inputs, but the description adds nothing about outcome or lifecycle.

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 every parameter (package default, Z/Y name rule, source_code contents, auto_activate, preaudit_requested) is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the $TMP default and adds no new parameter-level detail, so the 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 an ABAP class) with two qualifying constraints: it lands in a local package ($TMP) and carries no transport assignment. That scope clearly separates it from ImportClassFromFile, CreateClassImplementation, and the various Get*/Export* siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to prefer this over CreateClassImplementation, CreateClassTests, or ImportClassFromFile, and no prerequisite (class must not already exist, must be inactive, etc.) is stated. The only usage signal is the implicit $TMP restriction baked into the description.

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