Create Transport Request

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) correctly imply a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds behavioral context: the description parameter is 'shown in SE09/SE10', the return value is a JSON object with specific fields, and the returned number is expected to be passed to downstream tools. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured into purpose, arguments, return value, and examples. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy, and the practical usage example is front-loaded near the end for quick comprehension.

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?

With no output schema, the description clearly documents the return JSON structure and how to use the returned transport number. It also explains where the description parameter appears (SE09/SE10). This is sufficient for correct invocation, though it does not cover potential error conditions or prerequisite permissions.

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 input schema already documents all parameters with full coverage, including enums, defaults, and descriptions. The tool description adds only an illustrative example (natural-language request to description string) and repeats the downstream usage, which is helpful but not necessary.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'Create a new workbench or customizing transport request.' It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by specifying the return value used in sap_write_source, sap_create_object, or sap_delete_object, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: create a transport request, then use the returned number as the transport parameter for subsequent write/create/delete operations. It also provides a natural-language example, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., when listing or releasing transports with sibling tools).

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