Request activation of an SAP ABAP development object. Submits an approval request instead of executing, enforcing human review.
Activates an object. Requires human approval: the call returns an approval request and does not execute.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_name | Yes | Object name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the call returns an approval request and does not execute, which is a critical non-obvious behavior for an agent to know before invoking a tool that appears to perform an immediate action.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second delivers the essential approval caveat immediately after. Every word earns its place, and the critical information is front-loaded.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: the action and the approval-request return behavior. There are no other required inputs or complex outputs that would demand additional explanation. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.
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% — object_name is already documented as 'Object name.' The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the single string parameter is simple and fully covered by the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 starts with 'Activates an object', giving a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes the action from the sibling tools' actions like searching or writing, though it doesn't explicitly state what type of object is being activated or name a sibling to differentiate from.
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 siblings. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical activation workflows, or conditions where another tool would be more appropriate. The human-approval note is a behavioral caveat, not a usage-routing instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.