sap_set_field

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds context: it works on specific field types and notes that pressing Enter may be needed for validation. This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't mention error handling or side effects.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, field type clarification, and usage note/alternative. No extraneous information, well-structured 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 (2 params, no output schema shown), the description covers the main behavior, field types, and a post-action note. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain field_id) or error states, but overall it is fairly complete for its scope.

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?

Input schema has 2 required parameters (field_id, value) with 0% schema description coverage. The description merely rephrases their purpose ('set a value into an input field'), adding no additional meaning such as expected formats, how to obtain field_id, or constraints. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 (set a value), the resource (input field on current SAP screen), specifies the field types it works on (GuiTextField, GuiCTextField), and distinguishes from sibling tool sap_set_batch_fields. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions an alternative tool (sap_set_batch_fields) for filling multiple fields, guiding when not to use this tool. It implies single-field usage context but does not cover other scenarios or prerequisites.

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