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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the effect is contingent on the action definition and may mutate properties, create links, or launch follow-up processes — important context for an agent that cannot predict the outcome from the call signature.

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 two German sentences are front-loaded and information-dense, but the trailing '| EN: object, record, entry, property, link, search' keyword list is SEO-style padding that adds no invocation value for an agent. Removing it would leave a tight, well-ordered 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: it is a write operation, the outcome is action-dependent, and discovery happens via onto_actiondef_list. It stops short of saying what is returned on success/failure or whether prompts is conditionally required, but nothing critical for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so udid, action_key and the prompts object are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no syntax or format guidance for 'prompts' ({key: value}) or for how action_key relates to the action definitions, so it does not rise above baseline.

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 ('eine hinterlegte Action (Button/Automatik) auf einem Objekt ausfuehren') and explicitly distinguishes itself from read-only siblings by noting the effect is 'nicht rein lesend'. An agent can tell it apart from onto_object_set_property or onto_function_run 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 trigger ('Nutze es, wenn am Objekt eine Action angeboten wird') and routes the agent to the discovery tool 'onto_actiondef_list' for available actions. It lacks a when-not-to-use clause (e.g. use set_property for direct edits), but the positive routing is clear.

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