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

The description usefully discloses that the effect is function-dependent and may write data ("kann Daten schreiben — also nicht rein lesend"), which goes beyond the annotations' generic readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false. However it says nothing about permissions required, whether it runs synchronously, or what it returns, and the annotation pair could mislead an agent into expecting a non-destructive call.

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 core statement and the routing hint are front-loaded and every functional sentence earns its place. The trailing keyword list ("| EN: function, automation, expression, script, effect") is search padding 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?

With no output schema, the description should indicate what the call produces (a function result, an execution report, or nothing). It covers the safety caveat but leaves the return behavior of an arbitrary server-side script unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 both parameters are described in-schema, including the nested 'objekt' convention. The description only restates that inputs go in an inputs object, adding no syntax or convention detail beyond what the schema already carries.

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?

"Eine hinterlegte Funktion ausfuehren (serverseitige Automatik/Skript)" names a specific verb and resource and clarifies the object is user-defined server-side code, which separates it from create/update/delete siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with onto_object_execute_action, another plausible sibling, but the distinction is inferable.

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?

"Nutze es, wenn die Funktion bekannt ist; die verfuegbaren zeigt onto_function_index" gives an explicit condition plus a named alternative for the discovery case. No exclusion for when-not-to-use, but the gating condition is clear.

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