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 carries full burden. It states the action ('unpublishes') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a destructive operation, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting dependent services), or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand 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 zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, efficiently conveying the core action without unnecessary words or structure issues.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks details on behavior, outcomes, error handling, and how it relates to siblings like 'publishServiceBinding'. For a tool that likely alters system state, this minimal description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective 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%, with clear descriptions for 'name' and 'version' parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., format examples, constraints), so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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 'Unpublishes a service binding' clearly states the verb ('unpublishes') and resource ('service binding'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'unpublishing' entails (e.g., making it unavailable, removing from a catalog) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'publishServiceBinding' beyond the opposite action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the binding must be published first), consequences, or related tools like 'publishServiceBinding' for context. The description is standalone without usage context.

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