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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly carried structurally. The description still adds real context beyond them: the operation is irreversible ('Unwiderruflich') and, crucially, that only the value is removed while the object itself survives — a non-obvious behavioral distinction from the sibling delete tool.

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 action, its irreversibility, and both alternatives are front-loaded and waste-free. The trailing English keyword tail ('object, record, entry, property, link, search') is search-oriented padding rather than agent-facing instruction, which slightly dilutes an otherwise tight two-sentence description.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-behavior burden and does so adequately by stating the value vanishes and the object remains. Parameters are fully covered by the schema and safety is covered by annotations, leaving only minor gaps such as no-op behavior for a missing key.

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% with two required params (udid, key), so the schema already documents both fully. The description's mention of 'Property' and 'Objekt' maps to those params but adds no format, syntax, or edge-case detail (e.g. what happens if the key does not exist). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 einzelnes Property von einem Objekt entfernen') and immediately scopes it with the parenthetical that the value disappears but the object remains. It explicitly differentiates from two siblings by name (onto_object_set_property for clearing a value, onto_object_delete for the whole object), so an agent can route correctly 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?

Gives an explicit use case ('zum Aufraeumen fehlerhafter Felder') and names both alternatives with the condition that selects each: set_property with an empty value to clear a value, onto_object_delete to remove the whole object. This is the when/when-not/alternative pattern done fully.

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