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 important context: access ends while already-created data in the foreign scope remains. It does not discuss permissions or error behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 German sentences are front-loaded and useful, but the trailing 'EN: end user, customer, portal, notification, map, scope' keyword list does not help an agent decide or invoke the tool and weakens conciseness.

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 simple one-parameter destructive mutation, the description covers purpose, consequence, and the key alternative. Annotations and the schema carry most remaining structured information, though auth or failure behavior is not described.

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 there is only one parameter, scope_id, already described as Public-Scope-ID. The description adds no further syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: removing one's own assignment to a public foreign scope, and explicitly distinguishes it from blocking one's own scope via ontouser_scope_set_visibility. An agent can identify the action 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?

It states exactly when to use it: when a booked scope is no longer needed, and it names the alternative tool for the different case of locking one's own scope. This is explicit routing guidance rather than implied usage.

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