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. While 'Deletes a trace' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on related data), or what the response looks like. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 extremely concise with 'Deletes a trace.', consisting of a single, direct sentence. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. This efficiency is appropriate for a simple tool, though it may sacrifice detail for brevity.

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 complexity of a deletion operation, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like confirmation of deletion, error handling, or return values. For a destructive tool with no structured safety hints, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an AI agent.

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 the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'The ID of the trace.' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 'Deletes a trace' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (trace), but it's vague about what a 'trace' represents in this context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tracesList', 'tracesCreateConfiguration', or 'tracesDeleteConfiguration', leaving ambiguity about the specific resource type being deleted.

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. With sibling tools like 'tracesList', 'tracesCreateConfiguration', and 'tracesDeleteConfiguration', there's no indication of prerequisites, when deletion is appropriate, or what happens after deletion (e.g., irreversible action). This lack of context makes it challenging for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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