AmdpDebugStart

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

No annotations are supplied, yet the description discloses the two traits that actually matter: the session captures every request of the connected SAP user from this server and anywhere else, and it runs outside batch mode. The ordering guarantee for the background run is also spelled out. It stops short of saying whether an existing session blocks the call or what a session handle looks like.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the [read-only] [debug] tags, and every clause carries information. The single long sentence is dense but not padded, though it could be split for scanability.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description never indicates what comes back from a successful start (a session handle presumably needed by AmdpDebugWait/AmdpDebugStep) or how long the call blocks. For a stateful, blocking debug operation with nested parameters, that is a meaningful 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions for run, detail, breakpoints and stop_existing, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the sequencing semantics of run (starts once breakpoints are confirmed) and that breakpoints target SQLScript method lines; 3 is the baseline.

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 and resource — "Opens an AMDP debug session ... with breakpoints on lines in SQLScript methods" — and pins the scope to the connected SAP user. That reads distinctly from the ABAP Debug* family and from AmdpDebugSetBreakpoints, which adds breakpoints to a session rather than opening one.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: breakpoints are required, and the description notes a background run only starts after the system confirms breakpoints. It never says what to do when a session already exists (use stop_existing vs AmdpDebugStop) or how it relates to AmdpDebugSetBreakpoints, so the agent must infer the workflow from siblings.

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