ActivateTable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates activation (a mutation) but lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the table is already active. Given the absence of annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate as it provides minimal but not rich behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy, and front-loaded with the action verb. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 simplicity of the tool (activate a table), the description conveys its purpose and usage scenario clearly. However, it lacks return value information (no output schema) and could mention potential errors or prerequisites. Still, it is fairly complete for a straightforward activation 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema already documents the parameters 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 'Activate an ABAP table' and distinguishes itself from other Activate* siblings by specifying the resource type. It also provides context about when to use it (after CreateTable or UpdateTable).

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 explicitly says 'Use after CreateTable or UpdateTable if the object remains inactive,' which provides clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for most cases.

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