DeleteMessageClass

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait ('includes a deletion check before the actual deletion'), but lacks details on irreversibility, side effects on dependent objects, authorization requirements, or return behavior.

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 two sentences: first sentence states purpose and scope, second adds behavioral and contextual info. No wasted words; every sentence provides value.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and multiple siblings, the description covers the core purpose and a safety check, but omits details like success/failure output, authorization needs, or constraints on deletion (e.g., if messages are referenced elsewhere). It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates the transport requirement already present in the schema description.

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 verb 'delete', the resource 'ABAP message class (MSAG)', and the scope 'all of its messages'. It distinguishes from siblings like DeleteMessageClassMessage which deletes a single message, and other delete tools for different object types.

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 guidance on when a transport request is required (for transportable objects) vs optional (local $TMP), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like DeleteMessageClassMessage or when not to use it.

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