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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description still adds two things annotations cannot: the authorization requirement (can_manage_scope in the target scope) and the fact that 'body ersetzt die Definition vollstaendig', i.e. no partial merge. It does not say what happens to omitted label/description or whether a scope change moves the function.

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 and front-loaded: action, then the full-replacement warning, then format pointer and permission. The trailing '| EN: function, automation, expression, script, effect' keyword block is search scaffolding rather than instruction, but it is compact and clearly demarcated.

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 destructive mutation with rich annotations but no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what to pass, that the definition is wholly replaced, and the permission needed. Remaining gaps (fate of omitted optional fields, error behavior on a bad udid) are minor given annotation coverage.

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%, so every parameter (body, udid, label, scope_id, description) is already documented in the schema itself; the description's only added nuance is that body is a full replacement. Baseline 3 for a schema that carries the load.

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 concrete verb and resource ('RECHENREGEL aendern: bestehende Function ueberschreiben') and makes the update-vs-create boundary explicit by pointing at onto_function_create for the body format. An agent can tell this apart from onto_function_create/delete/index without opening a 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?

It supplies a real prerequisite ('Rechte: can_manage_scope im Ziel-Scope') and routes the body format to onto_function_create, but it never states when to prefer this over onto_function_create (new function) or onto_function_delete. Usage is implied by the name 'update' more than explained.

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