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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description goes beyond them by spelling out exactly what destruction means ('body ersetzt die Definition vollstaendig') and by naming the required authorization (can_manage_scope im Ziel-Scope). It does not describe the response or what happens to omitted fields, so not a 5.

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 action and the key destructive semantic in two short sentences; no filler. The trailing '| EN: function, automation, expression, script, effect' keyword list is search metadata rather than agent guidance and slightly dilutes the structure.

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 5-parameter destructive mutation with a nested body object and no output schema, the description covers the critical facts: full replacement semantics, format reference, and permission requirement. Minor gaps remain around the return value and the effect of changing scope_id.

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 both required and optional parameters are already documented, including the scope_id default to the previous scope. The description's note that body fully replaces the definition and points to onto_function_create largely duplicates the schema wording rather than adding new semantics.

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: overwrite an existing Function (calculation rule), which clearly separates it from onto_function_create, onto_function_delete, onto_function_run. The domain gloss 'RECHENREGEL' plus the EN keyword tail adds searchable meaning, though the phrasing is terse and jargon-heavy.

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?

Usage is implied by 'bestehende Function ueberschreiben' and the pointer to onto_function_create for the body format, and a permission precondition (can_manage_scope in the target scope) is given. However, there is no explicit 'use create instead for new functions' or 'use delete to remove' routing, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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