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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the concrete consequence ('Unwiderruflich' – irreversible) and clarifies that the parent object survives. It does not discuss permissions or return behavior, but for a two-parameter delete those gaps are minor.

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 content is three tight sentences that front-load the action, then the consequence, then the alternatives. The trailing '(EN: object, record, entry, property, link, search)' keyword tag is search-index noise that does not help an agent decide anything.

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 two-required-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and annotations that already carry the safety profile, the description covers action, irreversibility, and sibling routing. No output schema exists, so nothing further about return values is owed.

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 parameters (udid, key) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, syntax, or lookup hints beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('ein einzelnes Property von einem Objekt entfernen') with an explicit outcome distinction: the value disappears, the object remains. It is immediately distinguishable from onto_object_delete and onto_object_set_property without opening either 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?

Names both alternatives and the exact condition selecting each: use set_property with an empty value to merely clear a value, and onto_object_delete to remove the whole object. It also gives a positive use case (cleaning up faulty fields).

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