UpdateInterface

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

With no annotations, the description reveals the important behavioral sequence: 'Locks, updates, unlocks, and optionally activates.' This transparency about side effects (locking, unlocking, optional activation) is valuable and goes beyond the schema. However, it does not cover all behavioral aspects like error handling or authorization.

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 redundant, repeating the idea of updating/creating multiple times. It could be more concise and better structured, e.g., removing the 'Operation: Update, Create' and 'Will be useful...' 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?

The description covers the basic operation and behavioral sequence but lacks details about return values, error scenarios, or consequences of the operation. Given no output schema, more completeness would be helpful.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra semantic value to the parameters beyond what is already in the schema.

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 states 'Update source code of an existing ABAP interface' which is clear, but it also includes 'Update, Create' and 'updating or creating interface,' contradicting the schema that requires the interface_name to exist. This muddles the purpose and makes it less distinct from sibling CreateInterface.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like CreateInterface or ActivateInterface. The description says 'Will be useful for updating or creating interface' but does not specify conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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