sap_press_alv_toolbar_button

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating the action modifies state but is not destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., what occurs after pressing, error behavior). However, it does not contradict annotations, and the verb 'press' implies a standard UI interaction, so the description is minimally adequate.

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 two succinct sentences. The first sentence clearly states the action and examples. The second immediately provides a useful cross-reference to a related tool. No wasted words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. The tool is simple (press a button). However, it lacks details on preconditions (e.g., grid must be visible), error handling (e.g., button not found), or side effects (e.g., navigation). Still, for a straightforward UI action, it is adequate.

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 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does not describe grid_id (identifying the ALV grid) or button_id (the button identifier). Although the tool's purpose hints at these, no additional semantic detail is provided beyond what is obvious from the parameter names.

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 uses a specific verb ('press') and identifies the exact resource ('toolbar button on an ALV grid') with concrete examples ('sort, filter, export'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like sap_press_button (generic button) or sap_select_alv_context_menu_item (context menu).

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 directs the agent to use sap_get_alv_toolbar to find button IDs, which is a crucial preparatory step. It does not provide when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives, but the mention of the prerequisite tool provides good context for usage.

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