UpdateFunctionInclude

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the basic action (update source code) without mentioning side effects, required authorizations, or activation behavior (though the activate parameter is present). It also fails to note that the include must already exist (only mentioned in parameter schema).

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences and a header-like phrase. No redundant information is present.

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 5 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what happens after the update (e.g., return value), whether the source is overwritten entirely, or the relationship between update and activation.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra value beyond what the schema provides, such as noting that the include must already exist for include_name. Baseline is 3.

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 'Update source code of an existing ABAP function group include.' It uses a specific verb (Update) and resource (FunctionInclude), distinguishing it from CreateFunctionInclude and DeleteFunctionInclude among siblings.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like UpdateFunctionGroup or when not to use it. The description merely says 'will be useful for updating a function group include' without providing context for selection.

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