UpdateFunctionGroupUnitTest

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses two important behaviors: the existing local test classes are rewritten (destructive overwrite), and the object is activated as part of the call. It also flags the batch-mode restriction. It stops short of covering transport implications or failure modes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by side effects and the execution constraint. Slight redundancy in 'of the function group named by function_group_name', but no filler sentences.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is overwritten, that activation occurs, and when it may not run. The main remaining gap is transport behavior, which is only hinted at by the schema's transport_request field.

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 all four parameters (including detail and transport_request) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only loose framing for test_class_source and function_group_name without format or transport detail beyond the schema, 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 (writes/replaces), resource (ABAP Unit test classes of a function group), and names the exact target include. It is clearly distinguishable from CreateFunctionGroupUnitTest and from UpdateLocalTestClass by scoping the write to the function group's test include.

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?

Implied usage as a replace operation on an existing test include, and 'Runs outside batch mode' gives one concrete execution constraint. However, it never explicitly routes the agent between this tool and CreateFunctionGroupUnitTest or UpdateLocalTestClass, nor states prerequisites such as the test include already existing (that lives only in the schema).

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