DeletePackage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the PAK/058 one-save-per-session lock, explains why the server's own package tools leave the object deletable, and notes the tool runs outside batch mode. It omits irreversibility/confirmation expectations and any authorization requirements, so not a 5.

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 purpose, then the non-obvious session constraint, then the remediation. Four dense sentences, each earning its place, though the PAK/058 error code and parenthetical add some density that could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main operational trap (session locking), the transport prerequisite, and the batch-mode restriction. It stops short of stating the response shape or that the deletion is irreversible/needs confirmation, which would fully close the 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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it connects transport_request's optionality to local vs. transportable objects and connects force_new_connection to the session-lock explanation, including that the new session is closed afterwards. The detail parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Delete an ABAP package') plus the mechanism ('via ADT deletion API'), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling deletes like DeleteClass or DeleteBehaviorDefinition and from UpdatePackage. An agent needs no further reading to know what object type this affects.

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?

Gives concrete conditions: transport_request is optional for local objects, and force_new_connection is only needed when the package was saved elsewhere through this connection. It also signals a batch-mode exclusion ('Runs outside batch mode'). It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, which keeps it below a 5.

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