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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the concrete consequence an agent needs — the prior value is gone, with no history and no undo — and clarifies that existing executions are unaffected. It stops short of stating permission requirements or the shape of the response, but it meaningfully extends the annotation profile rather than repeating it.

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 destructive warning and the plan-vs-executions distinction are front-loaded and the sentences do real work. The trailing '| EN: trigger, automation, rule, event, condition, effect' keyword list is filler that adds nothing an agent can act on.

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 what changes, what is lost, and which sibling to use for the adjacent task. Remaining gaps — permissions/auth and whether omitted fields revert to defaults — are minor given full schema coverage.

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 every parameter is documented in German, so the schema carries the load; the description only alludes to the body facets (schedule, condition, target function) without adding format or validation detail. Baseline 3 applies when structured fields already explain the parameters.

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') plus the exact facets being modified (Zeitplan, Bedingung, Ziel-Funktion), and explicitly scopes it to the plan rather than past executions. This separates it from onto_function_run and from onto_trigger_create without needing 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?

Gives a positive use case ('Nutze es zum Umstellen von Automatiken') and names the one confusion-prone alternative with its condition: run a function once via onto_function_run instead. It does not explicitly distinguish update from onto_trigger_create or onto_trigger_delete, but the closest ambiguity is resolved.

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