UpdateLocalMacros

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the lifecycle (lock, check, update, unlock, activation) but lacks details on error handling, side effects, or consequences of failure. It is adequate but incomplete.

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, front-loaded with purpose and steps, then a note. No redundant information. Could be slightly more structured, but efficient.

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 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks detail on return values, permissions, or potential data loss. The lock/unlock mention helps, but it is not comprehensive.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only hinting at 'optional activation' corresponding to activate_on_update. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 local macros in an ABAP class, and mentions the process steps (lock, check, update, unlock, activation). It contrasts with sibling tools like DeleteLocalMacros and GetLocalMacros, but does not explicitly differentiate from 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 does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives. Only a note on version compatibility is provided, which is a constraint, not guidance on choosing between tools.

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