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

Annotations only declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and non-readOnly. The description goes well beyond that: no reason required, effect limited to this account/profile, the posting itself is unchanged, an existing bookmark is lifted, and the action is explicitly reversible via rueckgaengig=true. That is exactly the extra context a mutation tool needs.

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 core action and its reversibility, then routing guidance. Dense but nearly every clause carries meaning; only the reversal note mildly duplicates the schema.

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?

With annotations covering safety, an output schema handling return values, and full schema coverage of parameters, the description supplies the remaining gaps: reversibility, account/profile scope, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including rueckgaengig and profil_id scoping. The description restates the reversal flag but adds no syntax or format information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Blendet eine Stelle aus der eigenen Trefferliste aus') and immediately scopes the effect to the account and to the listing's bookmark state. It is clearly distinguishable from the related siblings it names.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Nutze dies, wenn die Stelle für die Person nicht passt') and routes to two named alternatives with their own selection conditions: stelle_melden for offline/filled/misclassified listings and stelle_merken for bookmarking.

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