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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description amplifies this beyond the binary flag by stating there is no history and no undo, and clarifies that object values are unaffected. It does not describe permission requirements, though the def_id schema note partially covers scope-management rights.

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 core action and constraint, and the destructive warning lands before the trailing keyword block. The appended '| EN: property, field, schema, ...' keyword dump is search metadata rather than useful prose, a minor waste but not a structural problem.

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 an 11-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, it covers purpose, the sibling alternative, and irreversibility, while the schema carries full parameter documentation. It stops short of stating auth/permission prerequisites in the description, but the definition-level scope is otherwise complete.

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 11 parameters are documented in the schema itself (including the mandatory label and the replacing semantics of type_ids). The description's field list (Label, Typ, Pflicht, Optionen) only echoes schema content, so 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 precise verb+resource (eine bestehende Property-Definition aendern) and enumerates the mutable aspects (Label, Typ, Pflicht, Optionen). It also explicitly demarcates scope: it changes the model/definition, not the values of individual objects, which cleanly separates it from value-level siblings.

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 when-to-use (zum Korrigieren der Felddefinition) and names the alternative tool by name (onto_object_set_property) for the adjacent task of changing values. The routing decision is fully determined without opening any schema.

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