sap_click_tree_link

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context by specifying that clicking a link in an SPRO tree runs an activity, but does not detail any side effects or permission requirements.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the action and immediately providing context. Every sentence adds value without repetition.

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?

The description mentions a companion tool ('sap_read_tree') for preparation, and given that an output schema exists, it covers the essential usage context. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 description provides specific guidance for the 'item_name' parameter (e.g., often '2' for execute icon), which adds value beyond the schema. However, 'tree_id' and 'node_key' are not described beyond their names, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates.

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 specifies the action ('Click a hyperlink') and the resource ('tree node item'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'sap_double_click_tree_item' by focusing on link-type items. The mention of SPRO/customizing trees provides specific context.

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 advises to use 'sap_read_tree' to identify link-type columns, providing clear guidance on how to determine the correct column. It also gives a typical example (item_name='2') for SPRO trees, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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