deleteObject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Deletes' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't specify critical details like required permissions, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, error handling, or any side effects (e.g., impact on related objects). This is inadequate for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It should cover behavioral aspects like safety warnings, prerequisites (e.g., needing a lock), or expected outcomes. The current description leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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 schema fully documents the three parameters (objectUrl, lockHandle, transport). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 the action ('Deletes') and the resource ('an ABAP object from the system'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'transportDelete' or 'deleteTransportsConfig', which might handle different deletion contexts, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'transportDelete' for transport-related deletions or 'unLock' for unlocking objects. It lacks any context on prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended scenarios, leaving usage unclear.

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