UpdateStructure

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'Locks, updates, unlocks, and optionally activates,' which is helpful, but it contradicts itself by implying creation capability while the schema mandates an existing structure. This misdirection reduces transparency.

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 verbose and repetitive: 'Operation: Update, Create. Subject: Structure. Will be useful for updating or creating structure. Update DDL source code...' The same idea appears multiple times without adding new information. It could be condensed to a single clear sentence.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description lacks context on return values, error handling, transport request usage, and the exact workflow (lock/update/unlock/activate). The agent would need additional knowledge 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions provide (e.g., structure_name must already exist). It does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints.

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 is clear, but it also says 'Operation: Update, Create' and 'Will be useful for updating or creating structure,' creating ambiguity since the input schema requires the structure to already exist. This inconsistency weakens 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like CreateStructure or UpdateTable. It does not specify prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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