UpdateTable

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

The description discloses that the tool locks, updates, unlocks, and optionally activates the table, which provides behavioral insight beyond the schema. However, it lacks details on side effects, error handling, or what happens on failure, leaving gaps given no annotations.

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 fairly concise but includes some redundancy (e.g., 'Operation: Update, Create. Subject: Table' followed by similar wording). It is adequately structured but could be more streamlined without losing clarity.

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, no annotations), the description leaves out important context such as what the tool returns upon success/failure, how errors are reported, and when a transport request is mandatory. The requirement for the table to already exist is mentioned in the schema but not emphasized in the description.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond restating update/activation behavior. The description of 'activate' parameter is covered in the behavioral transparency. No improvement over schema.

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 tool updates DDL source code of an existing ABAP table, distinguishing it from sibling tools like CreateTable (creating new) and ActivateTable (activating only). The inclusion of 'optionally activates' adds a nuance but does not confuse the primary purpose.

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 mentions 'updating or creating table' but then specifies updating an existing table, creating ambiguity. No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. CreateTable or ActivateTable, and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites like transport requirements.

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