啟用物件

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that activation returns a result and errors, but fails to mention that this is a mutating operation that changes the system state (activating an object), which may require certain authorizations or have side effects. The description is minimal and does not alert the agent to potential impacts.

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 sentence, very concise, and front-loaded with the key action. However, it may be too terse for a complex operation, missing critical information like side effects and usage context. It is efficient but could benefit from more detail without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and the complexity of ABAP object activation (which may fail due to dependencies or errors), the description does not provide enough context. It does not explain what the activation result format is, potential failure modes, or necessary preconditions. Sibling tools like syntax_check suggest activation might follow validation, but no such relationship is indicated.

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 the input schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('activate'), the resource ('ABAP object'), and the output (result and error messages). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like read_source and write_source, which perform different operations. The verb '啟用(activate)' is specific and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative tools, such as syntax_check for verification or write_source for editing. Prerequisites like object existence or transport request assignment are not mentioned. The description does not advise when not to use the tool.

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