sap_write_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that it is a raw forwarder that avoids class-write redirection, compatibility fixes, syntax checking, and activation. It also warns that authorization/validation/activation behavior depends on the backend, which is non-obvious and useful.

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 deliver the essential purpose and limitations without filler, and the negative behavioral list is dense but valuable. Slight room remains to restructure for scannability, but nothing is wasted.

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 write tool with no output schema or annotations, the description explains the forwarding nature and important caveats but omits return behavior, error/response format, and how the endpoint result maps to the agent. The backend-confirmation warning tempers this, leaving the definition adequate but not complete.

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 all seven parameters, including enum values, defaults, and required conditions. The description adds no extra detail about parameter format or relationships, so it stays at the baseline.

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 first sentence identifies a specific action (forward an ABAP source-write request) and target (configured /write_code endpoint), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly compare itself with siblings like sap_write_code_safe or sap_patch_code, so it misses the top score for differentiation.

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 implies usage boundaries by stating what the connector does not do (no redirect, no syntax check, no activation), and it instructs the agent to confirm backend behavior before allowing writes. It does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use conditions, so guidance remains largely implicit.

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