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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data, not the prose. The description adds no behavioral context (what an 'override definition' is, what gets destroyed, whether it cascades), so it neither helps nor contradicts the annotations.

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?

It is short, but it is a tag dump rather than front-loaded prose. Length is not the problem; there is no informational payload for an agent to act on.

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 destructive, non-idempotent delete of a schema override with no output schema, the description should at minimum state the effect on the underlying property definition. It conveys nothing beyond the tool name, leaving the agent to infer everything from annotations and the 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%: def_id and scope_id are both documented in-schema, and def_id’s description even cross-references 'die Zeile mit scope_id'. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the baseline-3 situation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description is a string of pipe-separated German/English tags ('Ontologie: onto/property_def/delete_override | EN: property, field, schema, property set, definition') rather than a statement of what the tool does. It merely restates the name and a keyword cloud; nothing distinguishes it from siblings like onto_property_def_create or onto_property_def_update.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The sibling set contains onto_property_def_create and onto_property_def_update, but the description never mentions them or any condition that selects this tool.

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