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

Annotations declare it non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the mutation nature is partly covered; the description adds real value by disclosing that the draft is empty, that the return carries a 'udid' field, and that the artifact lives in the agent's write scope (SSR-Kaskade). It does not cover permission requirements or repeat-invocation behavior, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 action is front-loaded and each sentence carries operational information (source, exclusion, result field, workflow). It is somewhat dense and bilingual with a trailing English keyword tag list that is mainly for search rather than instruction, which keeps it from a full 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return value and does so ('Feld udid' = Antwort-udid). Combined with the create-draft semantics and the submit follow-up, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though nothing is said about failure modes or scope errors.

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 is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'Nimm die form_udid aus list_formdefs' restates what the schema already says, adding no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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 – creating a form draft (Status 'draft') and obtaining its answer-udid – rather than a tautology. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the two related siblings, noting it sets no values (unlike submit_form_answer) and yields the udid needed by submit_form_answer/show_form_answer.

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 explicit workflow context: source of form_udid (list_formdefs), the hard exclusion 'hiermit werden noch KEINE Werte gesetzt', and the required follow-up (submit_form_answer). It names both the precondition and the next step, leaving nothing to inference.

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