undeploy_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Undeploy' implies an action, but the description does not clarify whether it is destructive, reversible, requires permissions, or has side effects like removing the artifact from runtime but leaving the package intact. The lack of context beyond the verb makes it insufficiently 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that immediately states the action and target. It contains no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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 tool is a state-changing operation with no annotations and no output schema. The description only states the basic action and does not provide essential context such as side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what happens after undeployment. While the parameter is fully covered by schema, the overall description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's impact and usage beyond the immediate action.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the only parameter, artifactId, with a clear explanation. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but given the 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not harm parameter understanding, but also does not enrich it.

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 action ('Undeploy') on a specific resource ('artifact from the SAP CPI runtime'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like deploy_artifact, list_artifacts, and get_artifact. The verb is concrete and the resource is well-defined, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as deploy_artifact or get_artifact. It does not mention prerequisites, intended use case, or any exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the name and description, which is minimal.

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