sap_press_button

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

The description discloses that after pressing, it returns screen info to detect navigation or popups, adding value beyond the annotations. Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description clarifies the post-action behavior and side-effect detection.

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?

Three concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence presents the core action, the second explains return value, and the third provides discovery guidance. Efficient and 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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the purpose, usage hints, and return behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

The input schema has no description coverage (0%), so the description must compensate. It explains that button_id can be discovered from other tools, but does not specify format or validation rules. This adds some meaning but not deep detail.

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 action ('Press (click) a pushbutton or toolbar button') and the target ('on the current SAP screen'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like sap_click_tree_link and sap_press_alv_toolbar_button by specifying the button type and interaction.

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 guidance on when to use the tool (to press buttons) and how to discover button IDs via sap_get_toolbar_buttons or sap_get_screen_elements. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.

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