sap_write_source

Does 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 discloses that the operation replaces existing source code, is restricted to allowed packages, and does not activate the object. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or failure behavior.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, followed by critical constraints. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, the scope restriction, and the critical follow-up step (activation). It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could optionally mention what happens after a successful write.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb ('Replaces') and a specific resource ('the source code of an existing object'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sap_read_source and sap_activate by focusing on the write operation.

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 gives clear context: it is for replacing source code, restricted to allowed packages, and activation is a separate step requiring approval. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use X instead', but the context is sufficient to guide an agent away from reading or activating.

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