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

The description discloses key side effects beyond the annotations: nothing is copied or deleted, the same module identity is preserved, both days are re-timed, and all module numbers shift. It also warns that the 'nummer' values become stale and must be refreshed via session_lesen. This is substantive behavioral transparency for a mutating operation.

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 short paragraphs front-load the core action, then cover side effects and the conditional prerequisite. Each sentence carries distinct information, and there is no filler or repetition of annotation values.

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?

Despite having no output schema and only false-valued annotations, the description gives the agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: target semantics, side effects, stale-number warning, and the foreign-session prerequisite. The instruction to re-read the session compensates for the absent output schema.

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?

The input schema already documents all five parameters in detail, so the baseline is high. The description adds useful operational context by explaining the renumbering mechanics and reinforcing that 'nach_nummer' is evaluated against the pre-move numbering. It does not add much new per-parameter detail, but it strengthens the critical semantics.

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 opens with the specific verb-resource pair 'Verschiebt ein Modul' and defines the allowed targets: within a day or to another day. It further distinguishes the operation from copying or deleting by stating that the same module with all texts and attachments moves. This clearly separates it from siblings like module_hinzufuegen or session_kopieren.

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 provides an explicit routing rule: if the session belongs to someone else, use session_kopieren first. It also gives a concrete after-use instruction to re-read the session with session_lesen before addressing another module. This tells the agent both when the tool is applicable and what to do afterward.

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