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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior: the copy includes all modules, belongs to the user, and the original remains untouched. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies the non-destructive nature and ownership change. It could have mentioned any side effects like permission checks, but that is minor given the simple scope.

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 compact: one sentence for the core purpose and one sentence for usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the action and adds the critical usage trigger without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers purpose, ownership, usage trigger, and effect on the original. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing. The usage context is particularly well-specified for the write-conflict scenario.

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% for both parameters: 'id' (from sessions_suchen) and 'titel' (default to '(Kopie)'). The description itself adds no extra parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full documentation burden.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'Macht eine eigene Kopie einer Session - mit allen Modulen' (makes its own copy of a session with all modules). It also specifies ownership transfer, which distinguishes it from read or modify tools. The verb 'kopieren' and the resource 'Session' are unambiguous and differentiate it from siblings like session_anlegen (create) or session_lesen (read).

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Nimm das IMMER, wenn ein Schreibversuch meldet, dass die Session jemand anderem gehört' (Always use this when a write attempt reports the session belongs to someone else). It also instructs the agent to inform the user and reassures that the original remains unaltered. No alternatives are mentioned, but the condition is precise and actionable.

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