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. 'Unlinks' implies a mutation operation, but the description does not specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects local or remote data, or any side effects like cleanup. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, and the tool's mutation nature ('Unlinks'), the description is insufficient. It does not cover behavioral aspects like safety, reversibility, or response format, leaving the agent with incomplete information for proper invocation in a Git 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'repoId' clearly documented as 'The ID of the repository.' The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing details, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Unlinks') and the resource ('a Git repository'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'gitCreateRepo' or 'gitPullRepo' beyond the basic action, missing explicit differentiation in scope or effect.

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 when to unlink versus delete or when it's appropriate in a workflow. It lacks context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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