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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real value on top: it writes to the database with "kein Trockenlauf" (no dry run), so the agent knows the effect is immediate, and it discloses that no links are created as a side effect. It does not say whether a validation failure leaves partial state, which keeps it below 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?

The core purpose and the no-dry-run warning are front-loaded, and each middle sentence carries a distinct constraint. The trailing "| EN: object, record, entry, property, link, search" keyword block is search fodder that dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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 create mutation with a fully described schema and no output schema, the definition covers what it does, that it persists immediately, what it requires, and which siblings to use instead. Given annotations already carry the safety profile, nothing essential for a correct call is missing beyond the required-field error noted above.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description actively misinforms: it says "Pflicht ist mindestens type" while the schema requires both type and name, so an agent following the prose would omit a required field. The explanations of properties (key → value) and interfaces (interface names) merely restate the schema descriptions and give no format or enum guidance for scope_id or external_id.

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?

"Ein neues Objekt anlegen" names a specific verb and resource, and the definition immediately scopes it against siblings by naming onto_object_update, onto_object_set_property and onto_object_create_link. An agent can distinguish create vs. update vs. link without opening any 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?

Explicit routing: use it for new records, use onto_object_update / onto_object_set_property to change an existing one, and use onto_object_create_link when relations are needed. It also states a negative rule — no automatic links are created — which prevents a common wrong invocation.

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