UpdateLocalTestClass

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

The description mentions the internal process (lock, check, update, unlock, activation), which provides moderate transparency. However, it does not disclose side effects, required authorizations, or error conditions. With no annotations, more would be expected.

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, containing only two short sentences. It front-loads the purpose and adds a process summary without unnecessary words.

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 core action and process, but lacks information on prerequisites (e.g., class must exist), return value, and failure handling. Given no output schema and the tool's complexity, it is moderately complete.

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?

Input schema descriptions cover all parameters with clear explanations (e.g., class_name, test_class_code). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so 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 action (update) and the resource (local test class in an ABAP class). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like UpdateClass or DeleteLocalTestClass by specifying 'local test class'. The process steps (lock, check, etc.) add clarity.

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 UpdateClass or CreateClass. The description does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it. The agent might confuse it with updating the class itself.

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