UpdateProgram

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does deliver real behavioral value: it discloses the internal lock/update/unlock lifecycle, meaning the agent does not need a separate lock call, and that activation is an optional trailing step. It omits what happens if the lock cannot be acquired or the update fails midway, and says nothing about rollback or response shape.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the precondition ("existing") front-loaded before the lock lifecycle and execution-mode note. Nothing here is padding.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the precondition and the lock/activation semantics but says nothing about failure modes, whether partial updates roll back, or what the caller receives. The schema fills the parameter gaps, so the tool is callable, but the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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 five parameters including the detail enum and transport_request are fully documented in structured data. The description adds only "optionally activates," which restates the activate parameter, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Update source code of an existing ABAP program"), which is unambiguous and immediately actionable. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as CreateProgram, ActivateProgram, or UpdateLocalTypes, leaving that routing to the agent.

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?

"Runs outside batch mode" is an implied usage constraint, and "optionally activates" hints at a choice the caller must make, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over ActivateProgram or the batch activation path. Real guidance on that trade-off lives in the schema's activate parameter description, not in the tool description itself.

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