sap_patch_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it states the tool is only a forwarder to an endpoint, not a local patching engine, and that behavior is endpoint-dependent. It does not disclose response shape, error behavior, or reversibility, so it stops short of a 5.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and every clause contributes either scope, exclusion, or a necessary precondition.

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 description covers the core forwarding behavior and gives useful endpoint-dependent caveats, but with no annotations and no output schema an agent still lacks information about what a successful response looks like, whether changes are immediately persisted, and how failures are surfaced. The instruction to verify the endpoint mitigates but does not fill this gap.

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 schema already documents all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling the agent to read current source before preparing replacements and to verify supported object types against the installed endpoint, which directly informs how to populate object_type and replacements.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: forwarding a source-patching request to the configured /patch_code endpoint. It also clarifies what the connector does not do (retrieve source, apply replacements locally, or run compatibility fixes), which cleanly separates it from read/write sibling tools.

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?

Gives actionable preconditions: read the current source before preparing replacements, and verify supported object types, patch arguments, and validation behavior against the installed endpoint. This is clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it.

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