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

The annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description reinforces this with concrete operational context: every posting is permanently logged, cannot be deleted, and errors are corrected by a reversing posting rather than an undo. This goes beyond the generic annotation and is directly actionable for an agent.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first explains the core operation and variants, the second adds the critical irreversibility/correction behavior, and the third routes to the correct alternative for a different case. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no fluff.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, all three variants, the permanence/correction model, and the sibling alternative. The idempotency_key flow is fully described in the schema, so its absence from the description is not a gap. A minor gap is that the return/confirmation shape is not mentioned, but this is not a serious omission given how well the rest is covered.

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%, and the schema already documents all five parameters in detail, including the subtle idempotency_key handshake. The tool description adds only a light interpretive layer for the movement types, not parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a precise verb ('Bucht') and a clear resource ('Bestandsbewegung auf einem Katalogartikel'), then enumerates the three movement types: Zugang, Abgang and Inventur. It also distinguishes itself from material_zuweisen, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: this tool is for stock movements on a catalog item. It also names the sibling alternative and the condition that selects it: material that goes to an order should use material_zuweisen, because that links consumption with the order and makes it billable.

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