ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool deletes an object, implying a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical aspects like required permissions, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, system impacts, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, side effects), usage context, and expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient information to safely and effectively invoke the tool.

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 already documents all parameters (objectUrl, lockHandle, transport). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying deletion targets an 'ABAP object', which aligns with the schema's 'objectUrl'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 resource ('an ABAP object from the system'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other destructive operations like 'transportDelete' or 'unPublishServiceBinding' among the sibling tools, preventing a perfect score.

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, prerequisites (e.g., needing a lock handle), or consequences of deletion. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'transportDelete', 'unPublishServiceBinding'), this lack of context leaves the agent without usage direction.

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