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

Very strong beyond annotations: it enumerates which fields are overwritten, which are preserved (Name, Kurzbeschreibung), the full-access requirement, a 60-minute single-use token, and that there is no undo with the only recovery being to recompute and re-apply. The one gap is the single-use kennung sitting unreconciled with idempotentHint=true — a retry does not re-apply but does fail, and the description never says what the agent should expect on a repeat call.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its overwrite scope, then usage condition, then access/limits, then the no-undo warning — a logical order with no filler sentences. The enumerated field lists make it dense, but each item carries real information an agent needs.

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?

Destructive mutation with a returned output schema; the description covers the destructive scope, prerequisites, authorization level, token lifetime, and irreversibility. Nothing essential for a correct invocation is missing.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds consequence-level meaning by stating the kennung is time- and use-limited and that ralf_vorschlag numbers get marked as accepted after the call. It could still have clarified behaviour when kennung is expired or already consumed.

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?

A specific verb (speichern/übernehmen) on a specific resource (die durchgerechnete Änderung im Profil), with the exact set of fields affected named. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling aenderung_durchrechnen, which computes rather than persists.

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?

Explicit precondition: only call after aenderung_durchrechnen has produced a kennung and the person has confirmed the computed change. It also names the optional path (ralf_vorschlag referencing ralf_vorschlaege from profil_lesen), so the agent knows when the parameter applies.

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