Delete a local ABAP class (Z/Y only in local packages) to remove obsolete or test classes from your SAP ABAP system.
Delete a local ABAP class (only Z/Y classes in local packages)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| class_name | Yes | Name of the ABAP class to delete (must start with Z or Y) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool deletes a class, but it does not state whether deletion is irreversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to dependent objects; that is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action and the key scope restriction efficiently for a one-parameter tool.
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 simple one-parameter delete tool with complete schema coverage, the core action and scope are adequately covered. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least mention irreversibility or authorization requirements, and its omission leaves a meaningful behavioral gap.
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%, and the single class_name parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the Z/Y prefix requirement. The description's parenthetical reinforces that constraint but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: delete a local ABAP class. It also narrows the scope to Z/Y classes in local packages, which helps distinguish it from broader class operations like CreateClass or GetClass.
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 parenthetical restriction to Z/Y classes in local packages is a usage constraint, but the description never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool. The guidance is therefore 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.