Delete ABAP Repository Object

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description expands this with concrete behaviors: the tool locks and deletes the object, records it in a transport when provided, cannot be undone except via restore, and deleting a function group removes all function modules. This is exactly the side-effect disclosure an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the permanent-destruction warning, then organized into Args, Returns, Examples, and Notes. Every section contributes essential behavioral or invocation information without repetition.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it states return fields, side effects, transport requirements, preconditions, and examples. An agent can safely determine when and how to invoke it.

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 base expectation is 3. The description adds value with natural-language examples mapping phrases to object_type/object_name/transport, and it restates the non-local transport requirement. The only minor weakness is that 'Returns (json)' is slightly ambiguous given response_format defaults to markdown.

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: 'Delete an ABAP repository object. This PERMANENTLY REMOVES the object from SAP.' This unambiguously distinguishes the tool from siblings such as sap_create_object, sap_write_source, and sap_activate.

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 practical usage context: transport is required for non-local objects, sap_where_used should be run first, and function-group deletion has cascade effects. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, but the destructive operation and prerequisites make the intended use clear.

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