UpdateStructure

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

The description reveals important behavioral traits: 'Locks, updates, unlocks, and optionally activates.' This discloses lock management and activation behavior that is not captured in the schema or annotations (which are absent). This helps the agent understand side effects and workflow integration.

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 relatively concise at three sentences, but includes repetitive phrases like 'Operation: Update, Create' and 'Subject: Structure.' These could be merged or removed. Overall it is front-loaded with the main purpose, earning a 4.

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?

With no output schema and moderate complexity (4 params, 2 required), the description covers the essential workflow: updating DDL, locking, unlocking, and optional activation. It lacks information on error handling or return values, but given the absence of annotations and output schema, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters, including examples for ddl_code. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or real-world context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update DDL source code of an existing ABAP structure,' which clearly identifies the tool's purpose: modifying an existing structure's DDL. The phrase 'Operation: Update, Create' is slightly misleading because the tool only updates existing structures (structure_name must already exist), but the core action is clear. Among sibling tools like CreateStructure, this distinction is implied.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like CreateStructure or CheckStructure. It vaguely says 'Will be useful for updating or creating structure,' but creation is not supported. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision support.

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