UpdatePackage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the lock/write/unlock sequence, notes the unlock happens regardless of the write's answer, explains the separate RFC ABAP session that is closed afterward, and warns that it runs outside batch mode. It omits error/rollback semantics and permission requirements.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the operational caveats. Every sentence adds non-redundant information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral traits (locking, session, batch restriction) that an agent needs. It could still say something about error outcomes or what a successful update returns, but it is largely sufficient.

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 all four parameters including the detail enum and transport_request are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update the description of an existing ABAP package'), narrowing scope to the description field only. It is clearly distinct from CreatePackage/DeletePackage/GetPackage, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'existing ABAP package' and 'Runs outside batch mode' imply preconditions, giving some usage context. However, there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g. CreatePackage vs UpdatePackage), leaving routing to inference.

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