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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that notes are private (nobody else sees them), that markings are tied to exact text and silently vanish if the text changes, and that the flow remains untouched. These are critical behaviors not captured by annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and they align without contradiction.

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 description is well-structured and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then gives usage guidance, then color semantics, then the exact-matching caveat, and finally the foreign-session note. Every sentence carries necessary information; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with 5 parameters (one a nested array) and no output schema, the description provides all essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, how marks work (colors, exact text, disappearing), and that it's non-destructive. Combined with the rich schema, an agent has everything needed 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the color semantics (yellow=pay attention, pink=open, blue=remember) and the exact-text matching behavior for marks, which goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions. However, it doesn't add much for id, nummer, or tag, which are already well-described in the schema.

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 the exact purpose: writing personal notes or marking text in a module, and explicitly distinguishes it from modul_aendern for flow changes. It names the resource (module) and the actions (note, mark) clearly, making it unmistakable from sibling tools.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (for reminders that don't alter the flow) and when not (for flow changes, pointing to modul_aendern). It also mentions it works in foreign sessions, giving the agent full routing guidance.

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