ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Changes the contact', implying a mutation operation, but does not specify required permissions, whether the change is reversible, potential side effects, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, efficiently stating the tool's action and target. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary detail.

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 is a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, or return values, which are critical for safe and effective use. The high schema coverage does not compensate for these gaps in context.

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 adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for 'itemUri' and 'userId'. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the parameters, though the description could have added context like format examples or relationships between parameters.

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 states the action ('Changes') and target ('contact for an ATC finding'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'atcContactUri' or 'atcRequestExemption', leaving ambiguity about its specific role within the ATC context. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'atcContactUri' or 'atcRequestExemption'. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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