UpdateMessageClassMessage

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation nature (update/upsert) and mentions transport requirements for transportable objects. However, it lacks details on side effects, permission requirements, or what happens to existing flags/fields not specified in the call.

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 contains some redundancy (e.g., 'Operation: Update. Subject: a single message inside a Message Class (MSAG).') which could be condensed. It is two sentences, which is reasonable, but the first sentence could be more direct.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides a basic understanding of the tool but leaves gaps. It explains the upsert behavior and transport requirement, but does not cover error conditions, the exact flags that can be updated (only self_explanatory is in schema), or how the update interacts with existing data.

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% for all 6 parameters. The description adds extra context beyond the schema: it explains that msgtext may contain placeholders (&1, &2, etc.) and clarifies that transport_request is required for transportable objects. This adds meaningful semantic guidance.

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/upsert) and the resource (a single message inside an ABAP message class T100). It distinguishes from siblings by indicating upsert behavior, which is different from create-only tools like CreateMessageClassMessage.

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 versus alternatives like CreateMessageClassMessage. The description mentions upsert behavior but does not provide context on preferred usage scenarios or when to avoid using it.

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