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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so safety basics are covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it states that the member's rights change immediately ('Aendert die Rechte dieses Mitglieds sofort') and that it is for rights changes rather than removal. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by immediate effect, then sibling routing in a compact sequence. No wasted sentences; the trailing English keywords are search aids rather than functional text and do not impede readability.

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?

Complete for a three-parameter toggle tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety. It explains what changes, when to use it, and what sibling to use for removal or status, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it. No output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required.

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%, so all three parameters (sp_id, field, val) are already documented in the schema, including the critical warning that sp_id is a membership ID rather than profile_id or scope_id. The description adds only the example 'Lesen/Schreiben', which maps to can_read/can_write but does not mention can_manage_scope. 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+resource ('Ein Mitglieds-Merkmal umschalten') and gives a concrete example (Lesen/Schreiben). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming remove_member for removal and list_members for current state, so an agent can select it correctly without opening other schemas.

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 it ('zum Rechtewechsel ohne Neueinladung') and names two alternatives with their contrasting purposes: remove_member for full removal and list_members for seeing the current state. Nothing is left to inference.

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