DeleteTable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It includes a notable trait ('Includes deletion check before actual deletion'), but omits details such as irreversibility, dependencies, permissions, or error handling. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 concise, using two focused sentences. It front-loads the core action and includes key behavioral and parameter qualifiers without extraneous text.

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 complexity of deleting an ABAP table (potential dependencies, prerequisites, consequences), the description is too brief. It lacks information about required preconditions (e.g., table must exist, not in use), error scenarios, or output. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 parameters are well-documented there. The description adds marginal value by restating the transport request's optionality for $TMP objects, which aligns with the schema. No additional parameter meaning beyond the schema is provided.

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 action ('Delete'), the resource ('an ABAP table'), and the system context ('from the SAP system'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like DeleteClass or DeleteStructure by specifying 'table', and adds behavioral detail about the deletion check.

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 mentions the optional transport request for $TMP objects, implying usage context for local vs. transportable objects. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., DeleteTable vs. UpdateTable for deactivation) or provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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