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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantive context: previous values are irrecoverably lost ("keine Historie, kein Undo") and the mutation affects the model, not object values. That explains the specific blast radius beyond the generic hint, which is genuinely valuable.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core mutation and the model-vs-values scope, followed by the destructive warning. The trailing "| EN: property, field..." keyword block is search-metadata noise that slightly dilutes focus but does not obscure the operative 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?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: scope (model not values), the correct sibling for value changes, and the irreversibility of the change. Nothing material for a correct call is missing.

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 10 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description gestures at mutable fields (fields, assignment, label) but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Ein bestehendes Property-Set aendern") and enumerates what is mutable (contained fields, assignment, label). It explicitly distinguishes the scope from sibling onto_object_set_property (model/schema vs. object values), so an agent can tell them apart 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?

Explicitly says when to use it ("zum Nachziehen von Feldgruppen") and names the alternative for the other case ("Werte aenderst du mit onto_object_set_property"). This is a clear when/when-not/alternative routing decision.

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