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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the trigger stops running but 'bereits erzeugte Daten bleiben bestehen' — clarifying what is and isn't destroyed. It doesn't address permissions or reversibility of the definition itself.

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-loads the action and consequence, then the alternative in a tight sequence of sentences. The trailing English keyword tag ('trigger, automation, rule...') is search-oriented padding rather than informative content, but it's brief.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and the pause alternative. Minor gap: no mention of auth/permission requirements or whether the deleted definition can be recovered.

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% and the single udid parameter is fully documented in the schema ('udid der Regel (32-hex)'). The description adds no syntax or format 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 (loeschen/delete) plus resource (Trigger) and clarifies the effect ('Automatik abschalten'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling onto_trigger_update by contrasting deletion with pausing, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Zum blossen Pausieren den Zeitplan mit onto_trigger_update anpassen, falls die Definition erhalten bleiben soll.' This is a genuine when-to-use-this-vs-that instruction, not inferred.

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