createObject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'create' without mentioning permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with 7 parameters, as it omits critical operational details like whether creation is immediate, reversible, or requires specific authorization.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its minimal content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification rather than brevity in a helpful sense.

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 complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks usage guidelines, parameter explanations, behavioral context, and output details, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in a server with many sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters like 'objtype', 'name', or 'parentPath', failing to compensate for the coverage gap. For a tool with 7 parameters, this leaves the agent guessing about their meanings and required formats.

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 'Create a new ABAP object' restates the tool name 'createObject' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'ABAP object' but lacks detail on what an ABAP object entails or how it differs from siblings like 'createTransport' or 'createAtcRun', offering only basic purpose without meaningful differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'createTransport' and 'createAtcRun', the description fails to indicate context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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