Update SAP Tool

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

Annotations already confirm the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, such as side effects, permission requirements, or response format. It does not contradict annotations but fails to enrich transparency.

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?

The description is two sentences, but the second sentence is dense with jargon and advisory content ('Publish only schemas and descriptions...') that is not action-relevant. It could be more concise and 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?

Given the complexity of updating tool hashes and the presence of an output schema, the description omits important context such as what the output looks like, how to construct update fields, and any error conditions. It feels incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 main description does not elaborate on parameters. The schema's object description lists updatable fields, but the main description adds no parameter-level meaning. Thus score meets baseline without enhancement.

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 explicitly states 'Update tool descriptor hashes using SDK ToolsModule.update,' which specifies a clear verb and resource. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like sap_update_feedback and sap_update_agent, which update different entities.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Use tool registry writes to advertise concrete capabilities' but does not clarify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with other update tools. The agent is left without decision-making context.

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