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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses a non-obvious side effect (a changed Beschreibung flips a planned order to 'In Bearbeitung' and it cannot be reverted), that employee push notifications may fire on a real reschedule, and that the customer is never notified. These are exactly the behavioral traits annotations cannot express.

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 purpose, then the mutation semantics, then side effects. Every sentence carries real information; the status-change and notification sentences are long but justified given the risk involved.

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, open-world mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, partial-update behavior, the irreversible status transition, and notification behavior. Minor gaps remain (e.g., handling of inconsistent beginnt/endet or error/failure modes) but nothing essential 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 57% and the description names the updatable fields (titel, beschreibung, ort, beginnt/endet), mapping to the main parameters. But it adds no format or constraint detail, and the idempotency_key semantics live only in the schema, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (ändern) and resource (bestehender Auftrag) plus the exact fields affected (Titel, Beschreibung, Ort, Termin). It clearly separates itself from siblings like auftrag_anlegen (create) and auftrag_ansehen (read) by scoping to modification of an existing record.

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 explains partial-update semantics ('nur die angegebenen Felder werden angefasst') and explicitly says the tool does not set status, which is useful usage context. However, it names no alternatives (e.g., wartungsvertrag_aendern, auftrag_anlegen) and gives no explicit when/when-not routing, so usage is only implied.

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