DeleteMessageClassMessage

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 usefully discloses the transport-request requirement for transportable objects and the non-destructive scope (other messages retained), but says nothing about reversibility, authorization needs, or the effect of omitting transport_request for a transportable object.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action and scope front-loaded and the transport prerequisite following. Every clause earns its place.

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 3-param delete tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers the action, scope, and the one non-obvious prerequisite (transport request). It stops short of the irreversibility/permission context that a destructive tool with no annotations ideally supplies.

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 msgno, message_class_name, and transport_request are already documented with examples and the transportable/local distinction. The description's 'by number' and transport note merely echo the schema, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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?

Specific verb (Remove) + resource (one message in an ABAP message class/T100) + key differentiator: it keeps the class and its other messages, which cleanly separates it from the sibling DeleteMessageClass. An agent can distinguish it from Get/UpdateMessageClassMessage without opening the schema.

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 clause 'keeping the class and its other messages' implicitly routes the agent away from DeleteMessageClass and toward this tool when only a single message must go. However, it never explicitly names an alternative or states a when-not condition, so the routing is inferred rather than declared.

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