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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the rights change takes effect immediately and no re-invitation is needed, which tells the agent this is a live permission mutation. It does not mention required permissions/role or error behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Purpose and alternatives are front-loaded and the German prose is tight. However, the trailing keyword tag ('| EN: member, participant, membership, team') is search-noise that does not earn its place in an instruction to an agent.

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 three fully documented parameters, annotations present and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it correctly and to route away from remove_member/list_members. Only the caller's permission prerequisites are unaddressed.

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% and the schema itself is strong, explicitly warning that sp_id is the membership ID and not profile_id or scope_id. The description adds only the 'im eigenen Bereich' scoping nuance and the read/write example, so it neither compensates nor detracts; baseline 3 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 ('Ein Mitglieds-Merkmal umschalten') with the concrete example of read/write rights inside one's own scope. It also names the two nearest siblings it is not (remove_member, list_members), so an agent can separate it from them without opening any 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?

'Nutze es zum Rechtewechsel ohne Neueinladung' gives the positive selection condition, and 'Ein Mitglied ganz entfernen: remove_member. Den Ist-Stand zeigt list_members.' gives explicit alternatives with their selecting conditions. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both spelled out.

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