createObject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Create') but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the creation is irreversible, potential side effects, error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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, making it appropriately concise. However, it lacks front-loading of critical details (e.g., key parameters or constraints), which could improve structure without adding length.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke this tool. The absence of output schema further exacerbates the gap.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning all 7 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters, failing to explain their purposes (e.g., what 'objtype' or 'parentPath' mean), expected formats, or examples. This leaves the agent guessing about input requirements.

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 'Create a new ABAP object' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('ABAP object'), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what an 'ABAP object' entails (e.g., code, configuration, or data) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'createTransport' or 'createAtcRun', making it somewhat vague.

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., required permissions or system state), exclusions, or related tools like 'deleteObject' or 'validateNewObject', leaving the agent with no context for decision-making.

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