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

Annotations only say it is a non-idempotent, non-destructive write; the description adds far more: every paid call reserves against the cap regardless of which tool makes it, reservations are never refunded, failed items keep their share, retries re-reserve, upscales/exports count, BYOK runs are excluded, and other projects are unaffected. This is exactly the beyond-annotations behavioral context an agent needs.

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 concept, then the action list, then the reservation rules; the separator-based layout is scannable. It is dense and long, but nearly every clause carries operational meaning, with only mild redundancy in the budget-pressure advice.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers what stand returns (cap, reserved, free, items) and what budget_exceeded signals, and it documents the full mutation lifecycle. 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic depth: it explains what each aktion value does and when it is permitted, and that deckel_credits must be named to the person in both credits and the price list's terms before freigeben. Only lauf_id semantics are left entirely to 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?

States a specific mechanism (auto run bounded by a hard spending cap in credits) and enumerates the four actions with their state transitions ('anlegen → status angelegt, nothing can be spent yet'). No sibling covers this concept, so it is trivially distinguishable.

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 sequencing: approve one run with a cap, generate freely inside it, 'freigeben ONLY after the person explicitly approved the cap', then stand/beenden. It also prescribes the exact recovery path on budget_exceeded (stop, report finished/open/minimum needed) and under budget pressure (lower resolution first).

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