validateNewObject

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says 'Validate parameters' without explaining side effects, return behavior, error handling, or whether it performs any checks or just returns a verdict. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate 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 entire description is a single declarative sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded but under-specified; however, the conciseness itself is appropriate.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description must provide a more complete explanation. It lacks any mention of return values, success/failure criteria, or relation to object creation, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 only parameter 'options' is a string with no schema description, and the description adds no meaning about its format or contents. 'Validate parameters' does not clarify what 'options' should contain, leaving the agent without critical semantic information.

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 ('Validate') and the resource ('parameters for a new ABAP object'). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like createObject or syntaxCheckCode, the focus on parameter validation makes the purpose reasonably unambiguous.

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 information about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it should precede createObject or how it differs from syntax check tools. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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