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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds high-value context beyond that: the required OAuth scope, the human-in-the-loop fallback, and the invariant that price stays unchanged. It could go further on failure behavior, but it meaningfully enriches the annotation picture.

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 action and its precondition are front-loaded and each German sentence mirrors its English counterpart, so there is no filler within a language. The full bilingual duplication doubles the length, which is defensible for i18n but not maximally concise.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational facts: precondition, fallback flow (including the returned link), and the price invariant. Minor gaps remain on per-parameter meaning and error outcomes, but the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters, yet it never explains orderId, reasoning, or clientOrderId. Only 'recipient' carries a schema description (inline fields vs { addressId }), which the description merely echoes. The gap remains unaddressed.

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 specific verb+resource ('Korrigiert die Empfängeradresse eines Briefs') scoped to a precise state ('im Status awaiting_partner_fix') and the follow-on action ('reicht ihn erneut ein'). This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like order_send (new send) and address_upsert.

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 an explicit precondition for use ('nur erlaubt, wenn die OAuth-Verbindung approval:self_approve trägt') and an explicit fallback path for when it is not ('muss der Mensch den zurückgegebenen Link öffnen und im angemeldeten Portal entscheiden'). The agent knows both when to call it and what to do instead.

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