adt_write_source

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the orchestration steps: optional conflict check, optional syntax check, lock, write with transport, mandatory unlock, and optional activate. It explicitly states that locks are never left dangling. This is comprehensive behavioral 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 very concise: four sentences that front-load the core purpose, then enumerate the workflow, emphasize safety, and list restrictions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential flow, safety guarantees, and constraints. It does not describe return values (e.g., success message or errors), but for a write tool with no output schema, this is acceptable. Slight omission of parameter formats or error handling prevents a 5.

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 description adds value by explaining that 'expectedCurrentSource' serves as a concurrency guard and that 'description' is used only when auto-creating a transport. This clarifies parameter usage beyond the schema.

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 clearly states this tool is for editing an ABAP object with a safe orchestration workflow. It distinguishes itself from siblings by outlining the multi-step process (conflict check, syntax check, lock, write, unlock, activate) and emphasizes 'AI-safe' behavior, which is unique among the listed 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?

The description explicitly notes that the tool is blocked in read-only mode and requires object names to match a Z*/Y* whitelist, providing clear conditions for use. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools like 'adt_edit_source' or 'adt_create_object', leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over others.

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