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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond them: it mutates the schema and 'bestehende Objekte haben das Feld danach leer', i.e. a real side effect on existing data. It does not discuss permissions, though the schema's scope_id description carries that detail.

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 useful content (purpose, side effect, routing) is front-loaded and terse. The trailing '| EN: property, field, schema...' keyword dump is a minor structural wart that pads the definition without adding invocation guidance.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations present, the description covers purpose, side effects, and sibling routing. Nothing critical is missing; only permission/authorization nuance and return behavior are absent, and those are handled elsewhere or not applicable (no output schema).

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% and the parameter descriptions are detailed (scope_id even documents can_manage_scope/admin requirements), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own; 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 ('Eine neue Property-Definition anlegen') and glosses it concretely as 'neues Feld im Objektmodell'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from onto_object_set_property, so an agent can tell it apart from the value-setting sibling 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?

'Nutze es beim Modellaufbau' gives the positive context (schema/model construction phase), and the sentence naming onto_object_set_property as the tool for setting VALUES gives the explicit exclusion. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated.

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