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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by naming the required authorization scope (can_manage_scope/can_write), which the annotations do not convey. It does not explain reversibility or side effects on dependent data, keeping it below a 5.

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 core sentence is compact and the permission note is useful, but the trailing "| EN: action, button, definition, gate, condition, rule" is keyword stuffing that does not earn its place. The definition is short overall but not tightly front-loaded.

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 one-parameter destructive delete whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description covers purpose and authorization adequately. It would be fully complete with a note on what happens to objects that referenced the deleted definition.

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% with a single well-described 'key' parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the key's format or semantics, making the baseline 3 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?

"Actiondef loeschen (Button entfernen)" states a specific verb (delete) and resource (actiondef), and the parenthetical clarifies what an actiondef is for an agent unfamiliar with the domain. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from its siblings onto_actiondef_list and onto_actiondef_save, so it stops short of a 5.

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 states a precondition (requires Scope-Manager/Writer, can_manage_scope/can_write), which is useful, but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never references the sibling save/list tools. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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