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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds real value beyond that: partial-update semantics (unnamed fields untouched) and the irreversibility warning ('keine Historie, kein Undo'). It does not describe error behavior for a bad object_udid, so it stops short of 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?

Front-loaded with the mutation semantics, then the alternative, then the exclusion and the undo warning — every clause earns its place. The trailing '| EN: object, record, entry, ...' keyword block is search-index noise that adds no agent value and costs it a point.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical gaps: what is overwritten, what is preserved, that deletion is out of scope, and that changes are unrecoverable. Only the failure mode for an invalid or missing object_udid 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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters including object_udid are already documented in the schema. The description only states the general overwrite/keep behavior and adds no per-parameter format or constraint details, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mehrere Felder eines bestehenden Objekts ... aendern') plus the exact semantics (overwrite passed properties, leave unnamed fields untouched). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from onto_object_set_property and onto_object_delete, so an agent can pick it 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 explicit when-to-use ('fuer mehrere Aenderungen gleichzeitig'), a named alternative for the single-field case ('fuer ein einzelnes Feld ist onto_object_set_property schlanker'), and a scope exclusion ('Loeschen ist nicht Teil dieses Tools'). Nothing 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.