寫入原始碼(自動鎖定)

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the internal process: read, concurrency check, lock, write, unlock, guaranteed release on failure. Also explains default syntax check and that syntax errors prevent writing. No contradictions.

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?

Concise, front-loaded with purpose, and structured logically. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 6 params and no output schema or annotations, the description covers key aspects: workflow, concurrency, syntax check. Lacks return value details but that's acceptable without output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining expected_current_source for concurrency protection and that new_source is a full replacement, not a diff.

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 tool modifies ABAP object source code, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by recommending a prior read_source call and describing the internal locking process.

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?

Provides a recommended workflow: read_source first, then modify and use expected_current_source for concurrency protection. Implicitly suggests when to use (writing source) but no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to siblings like syntax_check.

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