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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the safety burden is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond that: 'kein Trockenlauf' (no dry run) and the important caveat that links are NOT created automatically, redirecting to onto_object_create_link. It does not describe error behavior or whether partial writes roll back.

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?

Core sentences are front-loaded and information-dense, but the trailing '| EN: object, record, entry, property, link, search' keyword block is pure search-index filler that adds length without meaning. The substantive content itself is tight.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the important gaps: it confirms a real write, warns of no dry run, and pre-empts the most likely wrong sibling (link creation). Only rollback/permission behavior is unaddressed.

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 documents all six parameters and the baseline is 3. The description restates properties/interfaces semantics and adds a required-field note, but that note says 'mindestens type' while the schema actually requires both type AND name, which risks an agent treating name as optional.

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 ('Ein neues Objekt anlegen') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling read/update/link tools. An agent can separate it from onto_object_update, onto_object_set_property, and onto_object_create_link 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('fuer neue Datensaetze') plus named alternatives for the adjacent cases ('zum Aendern ... nimm onto_object_update oder onto_object_set_property', and onto_object_create_link for links). Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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