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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the change affects the model rather than individual object values, and there is no history or undo, which is important for a destructive schema mutation.

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 core description is front-loaded and efficient, identifying the action, scope, alternative tool, and destructive consequence. The trailing '| EN:' keyword list is extraneous for an agent but is a minor structural blemish.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description gives the essential call context: schema changes, not object values, and previous definition state is not recoverable. Detailed parameter constraints are covered by the schema, so the description is largely complete, though slightly ambiguous in saying 'Der bisherige Wert ist danach weg'.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so all 11 parameters are already documented there. The description mentions the main editable fields (Label, Typ, Pflicht, Optionen) but adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('bestehende Property-Definition aendern') and lists the definition fields affected (Label, Typ, Pflicht, Optionen). It also distinguishes model-level schema changes from object values, which separates it from sibling tools such as onto_object_set_property.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool for correcting field definitions and names onto_object_set_property as the alternative for changing values. The usage context is clear, though it does not spell out other exclusions or prerequisites.

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