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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses required rights (form_writer/admin + scope write access, else 403) and details copy side effects (fields transferred, visibility reset to target scope, adminsql stripped if not admin, buttons/template_file carried over). These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent must know before invoking.

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 core action, then progressively adds copy semantics and permission notes; each sentence carries information. It is somewhat long and mixes German with an English keyword tail, but nothing is truly redundant.

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?

Covers permissions, copy behavior, and the follow-up step, which is substantial for a mutation tool with no output schema. It does not state what the call returns (e.g. the new form's id/udid needed by onto_formdef_save), which is the one remaining gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to the copy parameter by explaining its side effects (field transfer, visibility, adminsql removal). Minor inconsistency: the text calls it 'from_udid' while the schema parameter is 'from'.

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 up front ('NEUES Formular anlegen'), then clarifies it creates the form object plus a minimal valid 1-field definition. It explicitly distinguishes itself from onto_formdef_save, which extends the definition, so the agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit workflow: create here, then build out with onto_formdef_save. It names the alternative (onto_formdef_list_templates) for sourcing a template and states the condition for the from_udid copy mode and the required follow-up check after copying.

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