CreateMessageClassMessage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states it is a Create operation (adds a message) and mentions the number and text fields. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., if the message number already exists), or any authorization requirements beyond the schema. The description provides basic behavioral context but lacks depth.

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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the key information (operation and subject), and the second adds the crucial prerequisite. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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's simplicity (create a message with number, text, and optional fields) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It covers the purpose and prerequisite. It could potentially mention uniqueness of message numbers, but overall it is complete enough for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some context about the parent class and the message number and text, and mentions placeholders in msgtext. However, it does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides. The prerequisite note is helpful but not parameter-specific.

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 the operation (Create), the subject (a single message inside a Message Class), and what it does (add a message with number and text to an existing ABAP message class). It also distinguishes from siblings like CreateMessageClass (which creates the class itself) and UpdateMessageClassMessage (which updates).

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 states that the parent class must exist first, referencing CreateMessageClass. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (after creating the parent) and implies not to use it if the parent does not exist. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but sufficient for the context.

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