Detach ABAP Debugger Session

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, disclosing the exact ordered cleanup steps, best-effort semantics, individual reporting, the fallback of dropping an ABAP session, and the meaning of verified=false. It also reinforces the idempotentHint annotation with concrete detail about repeated failed calls.

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 detailed but well-organized: leading warning, numbered cleanup steps, argument list, return summary, and idempotence note. Every sentence earns its place, and critical information is front-loaded in the first line.

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 cleanup tool with no output schema, the description fully explains return fields, failure semantics, retry behavior, and side effects. It even covers the preconditions implicitly by referencing the session_id from sap_debug_attach and the stateful debug connection.

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 the schema already fully documents both session_id and response_format. The description's Args list adds little beyond what the schema provides, though it does reinforce the required nature of session_id and the output format choices.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'End a debug session and leave nothing behind on SAP.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from its debug siblings by focusing exclusively on teardown and cleanup, and the detailed cleanup list removes any ambiguity about what detach does.

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?

It explicitly states 'ALWAYS call this when done,' giving an unambiguous trigger condition, and explains the real-world harm of not calling it. It also provides idempotence guidance, saying it is safe to call twice and safe on an already-ended session, which covers the main edge cases for usage.

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