createObject

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

The description only says 'Create a new ABAP object', implying a write operation. With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., locking, transport requirements), but it does not. Critical details such as whether the object is immediately active, or if it requires activation, are missing.

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 (6 words), but this brevity sacrifices essential information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. A good description should front-load key details, but here there is only a verb and a noun with no 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 tool has 7 parameters (5 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the object type, the need for transport, the parent structure, or any constraints. An agent cannot reliably use this tool without significant risk of error.

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%, and the description provides no additional meaning for any of the 7 parameters. The parameter names (name, objtype, transport, parentName, parentPath, description, responsible) are not explained. For instance, what are valid values for objtype? What does parentPath represent? The agent must guess, making effective invocation unlikely.

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 states 'Create a new ABAP object', which clearly indicates the verb (Create) and the resource (ABAP object). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like createTransport or createAtcRun, which also create objects. The lack of specificity about the type of ABAP object (despite the 'objtype' parameter) means the purpose is clear but not uniquely distinguishing.

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 guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context on prerequisites, constraints, or common use cases. For example, it does not mention that validateNewObject might be used first, or that transport handling is required.

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