UpdateUnitTest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It warns that ADT will return an error, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not describe what happens in non-ADT contexts or what the error looks like, leaving the behavior partially ambiguous. The disclosure adds value but is incomplete.

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 extremely concise, consisting of only two sentences. Every word is meaningful, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately identifies the parameter and warns of an important limitation. However, it lacks details about the expected outcome on success, the nature of the error, or whether the tool is functional outside ADT. These gaps make it less than fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'run_id' is already described in the input schema as 'Run identifier returned by CreateUnitTest/RunUnitTest.' The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update an ABAP Unit test run.' It is a specific verb+resource combination, and it distinguishes itself from other 'Update*' siblings which target different objects. The additional note about ADT not supporting it adds clarity about the tool's intended scope.

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 explicitly provides a when-not-to-use guideline: 'ADT does not support updating unit test runs and will return an error.' This tells the agent to avoid using this tool in an ADT context. However, it does not suggest alternative tools or specify when it is appropriate to use, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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