setObjectSource

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. 'Sets' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, side effects (e.g., if it overwrites existing code), error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 complexity (a write operation with 4 parameters, 3 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation by an AI agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'source code' and 'ABAP objects', hinting at 'source' and possibly 'objectSourceUrl', but doesn't explain any of the 4 parameters (e.g., what 'lockHandle' or 'transport' are for). This adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names.

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 'Sets source code for ABAP objects' clearly states the action (sets) and target (source code for ABAP objects), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what 'sets' entails (e.g., creates, updates, or replaces) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'createObject' or 'getObjectSource', making it vague in context.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a lockHandle), related tools like 'getObjectSource' for reading source code, or scenarios where it's appropriate, leaving the agent with no usage context.

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