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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing post-delete behavior the annotations cannot express: the trigger stops running but previously generated data survives, and the definition itself is lost unless you pause instead. Missing only an explicit statement on irreversibility/undo.

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 behavioral facts are front-loaded in two tight sentences with zero filler. The trailing '| EN:' keyword list is matching-oriented noise rather than substance, which slightly detracts from otherwise excellent economy.

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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description gives the agent everything needed: what stops, what persists, and how to avoid deletion. It could be a 5 with an explicit note on whether removal is reversible, but nothing essential 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'udid' is documented in the schema as a 32-hex identifier. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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 ('Einen Trigger loeschen') and immediately clarifies the effect (automation switched off), which distinguishes it from the sibling onto_trigger_update that only pauses. An agent can tell exactly what operation this is without opening the 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 names the alternative (onto_trigger_update) and the condition that selects it ('zum blossen Pausieren ... falls die Definition erhalten bleiben soll'). This is the when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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