DeleteProgram

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that the transport request is optional for local objects and that the call runs outside batch mode. However, it says nothing about irreversibility, required authorizations, or what happens to existing/inactive versions on delete — significant gaps for a destructive mutation.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. The trailing 'Runs outside batch mode' is terse but adds real operational context; minor deduction for its slightly cryptic framing.

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 delete with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and transport behavior but leaves out error/irreversibility behavior and preconditions, so an agent still lacks enough to call it safely in edge cases.

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 schema already documents all three parameters, including the transport/local-object rule. The description's transport sentence merely restates the schema and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 program') plus the mechanism ('via ADT deletion API'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the many DeleteClass/DeleteInterface/DeleteServiceDefinition siblings without needing to open schemas.

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 intent to remove a program is implied and the transport note gives context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. object must be inactive/deactivated first), and no routing to alternatives such as CheckProgram or the version tools.

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