validateNewObject

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. It states the tool validates parameters but doesn't describe what validation entails (e.g., syntax checks, consistency rules), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, which is appropriate for such a brief statement.

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 complexity (1 parameter but 0% schema coverage), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't compensate for missing details on behavior, parameters, or return values, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 has 1 parameter ('options') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't add any parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'options' should contain (e.g., a JSON string with object properties), its format, or examples, leaving the parameter's meaning and usage completely undocumented.

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 'Validate parameters for a new ABAP object' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('parameters for a new ABAP object'), which is adequate. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'syntaxCheckTypes' that might also involve validation, leaving some ambiguity about its specific scope.

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., before creating an object), exclusions, or related tools like 'createObject' from the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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