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: it discloses that the previous value is permanently lost ('keine Historie, kein Undo') and that the change affects only the schedule/plan, not past executions. That is meaningful disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 verb+resource, then scope, then usage, then the excluded alternative, then the destructive warning — a logical order. It is a bit dense in five clauses, and the trailing '| EN: ...' keyword list is search-oriented rather than informative, but nothing is genuinely wasted.

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 mutation tool with full annotation coverage of the safety profile, no output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the description supplies the essential missing pieces: what is modified, what is destroyed, and where to go for the body format. Complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor depth left to sibling tools.

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 udid, label, scope_id, description and the nested body. The description's breakdown (schedule/condition/target function) loosely describes the opaque 'body' contents but adds no syntax or format detail beyond 'siehe onto_trigger_create'. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 and resource ('einen bestehenden Trigger aendern') and enumerates exactly what changes (Zeitplan, Bedingung, Ziel-Funktion). It also draws the boundary from siblings by noting the change 'betrifft den Plan, nicht die bereits gelaufenen Ausfuehrungen' and routes one-off execution to onto_function_run. An agent can distinguish it from onto_trigger_create/delete/run without opening a 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?

Provides explicit usage ('Nutze es zum Umstellen von Automatiken') and names the alternative for the adjacent task ('Eine Funktion einmalig ausfuehren: onto_function_run'). It does not explicitly contrast against onto_trigger_create (creating a new rule), though 'bestehenden' implies existing-only, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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