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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new context: the effect depends on the function itself and may write data, so it is 'nicht rein lesend'. This warns the agent that behavior is dynamic and cannot be inferred from the annotation alone. It stops short of describing permissions, side-effect scope, or return shape.

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?

Core purpose and the routing hint are front-loaded and the body is tight. The trailing bilingual keyword block ('| EN: function, automation, expression, script, effect') is redundant padding for an agent that already has the name, but the substantive sentences earn their place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical uncertainty (side effects vary per function, not read-only) and points to the discovery sibling. It would be stronger with a note on required permissions or how errors/return values surface, but nothing essential for calling it is missing.

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 both parameters (function, inputs) are already documented, including the 'objekt' = target-UDID convention. The description only restates that inputs are passed as an inputs-object, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Eine hinterlegte Funktion ausfuehren') and immediately scopes what it is — a server-side automation/script. It is clearly distinguishable from the surrounding onto_function_* siblings (create/update/delete/index) because it names the run vs. manage split.

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 when-to-use condition ('Nutze es, wenn die Funktion bekannt ist') and routes the agent to the alternative for discovery ('die verfuegbaren zeigt onto_function_index'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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