UpdateBehaviorImplementation

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Uses stateful session with proper lock/unlock mechanism,' which is a useful behavioral trait but does not disclose other potential effects (e.g., activation behavior, error conditions, or permanent changes).

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 sentences, each adding unique value: first states purpose, second adds behavioral detail. No wasted words, efficient and front-loaded.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, scope, and behavioral mechanism. It could mention the optional activation parameter, but overall provides sufficient context for an experienced developer.

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 3 applies. The description adds context about what implementation_code does and that transport is optional, but the schema already documents parameters thoroughly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resources ('source code of an existing ABAP behavior implementation class') and clarifies scope ('Updates both main source ... and implementations include'). It clearly distinguishes from CreateBehaviorImplementation and other update tools.

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 implies usage for updating existing implementations but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like CreateBehaviorImplementation or other update tools. It provides a behavioral note on stateful sessions but lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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