adt_create_table

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It transparently discloses auto-prepend of MANDT, default technical attributes (delivery class, enhancement category), field foreign key support, and naming constraints. Minor omissions around error handling and side effects are acceptable for a creation tool of this complexity.

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 a single coherent paragraph that front-loads the primary action and progressively adds details. Every sentence adds value, covering core functionality, defaults, exceptions (autoClient), constraints, and return values. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the creation process, field types, foreign keys, default behaviors, naming rules, optional activation, and return information (URI, field count, DDL source, activation status). Only minor details like error scenarios are omitted, which is acceptable.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining autoClient behavior ('Auto-prepend... disable via autoClient=false'), naming convention, and default technical attributes. This extra context compensates well for the schema's already complete descriptions.

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 'Create a DDIC transparent table (TABL) using ABAP Dictionary DDL' – a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like adt_create_domain and adt_create_dataelement. It also clarifies key behaviors such as auto-prepending MANDT and naming constraints, leaving no ambiguity.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (creating transparent tables) and covers default behaviors (auto-client, package, activation), naming requirements (Z*/Y* prefix), and optional features. While it does not explicitly list when not to use or compare with siblings, the detail is sufficient for appropriate selection.

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