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

Adds valuable context beyond annotations: it states that access ends but already created data in the foreign scope remains there. This clarifies the scope of destruction, which annotations only broadly indicate with destructiveHint=true. It does not mention idempotency, but the annotation covers that.

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 main description is front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing '| EN: end user, customer, portal, notification, map, scope' is extraneous keyword stuffing that does not help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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-param tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral consequences. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100% for the single scope_id parameter, and the description adds no syntax, format, or semantic details beyond what the schema provides. 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 ('Die eigene Zuordnung zu einem oeffentlichen fremden Scope wieder entfernen') and explicitly distinguishes from sibling ontouser_scope_set_visibility. An agent can tell what the tool does without reading 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 says when to use ('Nutze es, wenn du einen gebuchten Scope nicht mehr brauchst') and names the alternative tool for locking one's own scope. No ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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