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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses append-only semantics ('bestehende Kommentare bleiben'), that a comment is its own object of type comment linked via hascomment, and the delete path (status becomes deleted, disappears from panel). This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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-loads the action and keeps behavior, usage, and alternatives in tight sentences with no filler. The trailing '| EN: ...' keyword block is extraneous but minor.

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 an append-only mutation tool with no output schema, it covers behavior, alternatives, the deletion workflow, and the immutability constraint. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description reinforces that parent is the target object and text is the comment, but adds no format or syntax detail and never mentions scope_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Einen Kommentar an ein Objekt anhaengen') plus the resulting artifact ('Verlaufseintrag mit Autor und Zeitstempel'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like onto_object_set_property and onto_object_delete.

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?

Explicitly names the use case ('fuer Notizen und Rueckfragen am Datensatz') and the alternative for a different need ('Es aendert KEINE Properties; dafuer onto_object_set_property'). It also routes the agent to onto_object_delete for removal and states that editing is impossible, so the when/when-not is fully covered.

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