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

Adds real value beyond the annotations: destructiveHint=true could easily be read as deleting the object, and the description explicitly corrects that ('Loescht NUR die Merkung, nicht das Objekt selbst'). It also discloses the account scoping constraint, which no annotation conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the key non-obvious caveat; roughly three short sentences with no filler. The trailing 'EN: favorite, bookmark, quick access' tag block is search-oriented cruft rather than instruction.

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, non-read-only, idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the risky ambiguity (bookmark vs object) and the routing alternative. Return/deleted-state confirmation is not described, but that is a minor gap at this complexity.

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% and the single parameter already documents its origin (Favoriten-ID aus onto_favorite_index). The description adds nothing about the id beyond the schema, 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?

Specific verb + resource (remove an object from one's own favorites) with explicit scope. It distinguishes itself from onto_favorite_add, onto_favorite_toggle, onto_favorite_index and onto_object_delete by name.

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?

States the condition that switches to another tool ('Das Objekt selbst loeschst du mit onto_object_delete') and restricts scope to the caller's own account. It does not, however, contrast itself with onto_favorite_toggle, the closest behavioural sibling, leaving that choice to inference.

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