AddTransportObject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the mutation happens but not whether it requires a modifiable transport, what happens if the object is already in the request, whether it errors on a released task, or what permissions are needed — significant gaps for a write operation.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and following with the effect. Nothing to trim.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain prerequisites, failure modes, and effect on the transport request. It covers only the bare intent, leaving an agent unable to predict what will happen on error or on an already-released transport.

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%, including the notable warning that object_type is an object-directory type (CLAS, FUGR) rather than an ADT type code, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Add an existing ABAP object to a transport task') and adds the consequence ('so it travels with the task's request'), which makes it distinguishable from the sibling RemoveTransportObject. It doesn't explicitly name siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 word 'existing' implies the object must already exist, and the tool's intent (assign an object to a task) is inferable, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., transport must be modifiable/unreleased), and no mention of when to prefer this over CreateTransportTask or ReadTransportObjects.

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