UpdateFunctionGroup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses a stateful session and proper lock/unlock mechanism, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is a write/destructive action or detail potential side effects, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses efficient language. Every sentence adds value: purpose, context about function groups, and behavioral note about stateful session.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and its session requirement. However, it lacks information about the return value or output, which would help the agent understand the outcome. Missing mention of error handling or typical use 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it effectively repeats the schema's descriptions for each parameter.

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 tool updates metadata (description) of an existing ABAP function group. It specifies the verb 'update' and the resource 'function group', and distinguishes from siblings by noting that function groups are containers and don't have source code, making it unique among 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 mentions a stateful session and lock/unlock mechanism, implying prerequisites, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It indirectly suggests that for source code updates, other tools should be used, but lacks clear guidance or comparative context.

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