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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real context beyond them: destruction is confined to the bookmark, the underlying object is untouched, and the effect is limited to the caller's own account.

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?

Short, front-loaded sentences with the scope constraint stated first. The trailing '| EN: favorite, bookmark, quick access' keyword tag is a small amount of padding but serves discoverability, so the cost is minor.

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 single-parameter idempotent delete with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, what survives, whose account is affected, and where to go for object deletion. Only the toggle sibling relationship is unaddressed.

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 single 'id' parameter is already documented as a favorite ID sourced from onto_favorite_index. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, 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?

The description names a specific verb ('entfernen') and resource ('aus den eigenen Favoriten') with clear scope. It explicitly separates itself from onto_object_delete and, by implication, from onto_favorite_add, so an agent can pick it without opening schemas.

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 states the crucial when-not condition ('Loescht NUR die Merkung, nicht das Objekt selbst') and routes object removal to onto_object_delete. What is missing is disambiguation against the close sibling onto_favorite_toggle, which could also remove a favorite.

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