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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the genuinely useful consequence detail that the previous value is irretrievable (no history, no undo) and clarifies that the change is model-level, not value-level. It does not restate permissions or apply semantics, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and consequence, with the alternative routing after. The trailing bilingual keyword line ('| EN: ...') is non-essential padding for an agent but does not obscure the main content.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile, the schema covers all parameters, and there is no output schema to explain. Combined with the model-vs-value scoping and irreversibility note, an agent has what it needs; only explicit auth/permission context is absent (partially covered in the set_id param description).

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 the schema already documents all ten parameters. The description only loosely gestures at the same fields (Felder, Zuordnung, Label) and adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ('Ein bestehendes Property-Set aendern') and scopes the affected aspects (enthaltene Felder, Zuordnung, Label). It also delimits the domain against object values, making it clearly distinct from the object-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 explicit when-to-use ('Nutze es zum Nachziehen von Feldgruppen') and names the alternative for the other case ('Werte aenderst du mit onto_object_set_property'). Nothing about tool selection 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.