CreateMessageClass

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 discloses that the tool creates a 'shell' (meaning incomplete object), that messages are added separately, and that activation is not performed. This is useful behavioral context beyond a simple 'create'.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the key action front-loaded. Every sentence provides essential information without unnecessary words.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, the workflow (add messages later), and a key constraint (not activated). It is fairly complete for a creation tool, though it could mention the return value or confirmation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides; it restates the required parameters but does not elaborate on optional ones like transport_request or master_language.

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 'Create a new ABAP message class (T100) shell.' It specifies the verb (Create) and resource (Message Class). It distinguishes from siblings like CreateMessageClassMessage by mentioning that individual messages are added afterwards.

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 explicit guidance: 'Individual messages are added afterwards with CreateMessageClassMessage.' and 'Message classes are not activated.' This helps the agent understand the workflow and when to use this tool vs. alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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