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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds concrete consequences beyond them: existing type definitions can be overwritten and the previous value is unrecoverable (keine Historie, kein Undo). It doesn't cover permissions or rate limits, so it stops short of 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 destructive warning and prerequisite are front-loaded across three tight sentences. The trailing '| EN: catalog, preset, template, apply, clear' keyword block is mild clutter but arguably aids search.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers effect, prerequisite, reversibility and irreversibility. Return-value behavior is unaddressed, but that is a minor gap for this operation type.

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% and the schema already documents both parameters, including the union/empty-array semantics. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ein Preset auf einen Scope anwenden') plus the effect on the scope's object types, which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings onto_catalog_index (read), onto_catalog_presets (list) and onto_catalog_clear (undo). An agent can route to it 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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite ('Pruefe vorher mit onto_catalog_index') and the rollback alternative ('Rueckgaengig: onto_catalog_clear'), so both when-to-use and how-to-recover are stated rather than inferred.

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