editObjectSource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly explains the server-side sequence, conditions for no-write (non-unique match, syntax errors), edit types, bottom-up application of line edits, and optional activation. It also explains the effect of the syntaxCheck and mainProgram parameters. This level of detail compensates for missing annotations.

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 paragraph but is well-structured: it starts with the core action, explains the process, then conditions, then edit types. It is dense but not overly verbose. Could benefit from minor structure improvements like bullet points for the two edit formats, but it remains clear 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?

The tool has no output schema and the description does not specify what is returned (e.g., success status, updated source, error messages). Given the complexity (11 parameters, server-side process), agents would benefit from knowing the expected response format. The description covers input well but lacks output information.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning: it explains the two edit formats (string replacement with optional replaceAll, line replacement with startLine/endLine/newText), the derivation of objectUrl from objectSourceUrl, the purpose of mainProgram for includes, the syntaxCheck flag behavior, and that oldString/newString are a convenience for single edits. This goes well beyond the 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 that the tool edits an ABAP object by sending only a snippet, and explains the server-side process (lock, get source, apply edits, syntax check, set source, optional activate, unlock). This distinguishes it from siblings like setObjectSource which would replace the full source, and getObjectSource which retrieves source. The verb 'edit' and resource 'ABAP object' are specific.

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 clear usage context: when you need to modify an ABAP object by applying specific edits (string or line replacements) rather than replacing the entire source. It implies not to use for full source replacement (use setObjectSource instead). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.

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