sap_scroll_table_control

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is thin; the description compensates by disclosing that the resulting top row may differ from the requested one, that requested_position/note signal the mismatch, and that cell IDs are relative to the visible top row. It does not cover other behavioral details (e.g. whether the scroll is reversible or session state side effects), so it stops short of a 5.

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 primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the exclusion, the preferred alternative, and the response caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format details are not required, and the description still adds the one non-obvious return caveat (position vs requested_position). For a 2-param scroll tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0% and the schema gives only integer/string types, so the description must carry the load; it meaningfully explains that 'position' becomes the top row, that the applied position may differ, and how cell IDs index off it. 'table_id' remains self-evident but undocumented, keeping it below a full 5.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Scroll a GuiTableControl to a specific row position') and explicitly excludes ALV grids, which is the key ambiguity given the sibling tools sap_get_alv_toolbar and sap_press_alv_toolbar_button. An agent can distinguish this from the many other table/row siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names when not to use it (ALV grids, which scroll internally) and routes the agent to a concrete alternative with the exact parameter to use ('prefer sap_read_table with start_row parameter'). This is the when/when-not/alternative pattern in full.

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