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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readonly, non-destructive write. The description adds substantial context: it is free, performs no model call, builds its prompt prefix deterministically from fields, and returns a @prop_ tag. This goes well beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by cost/behavioral details and an alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, cost model, return value, and a key alternative, which is helpful. However, for an 8-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the complete lack of parameter meaning leaves a significant gap for an agent trying to call it correctly.

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 0% for 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only vaguely refers to 'fields' and implies 'name' through 'named prop', but gives no meaning for epoche, farben, groesse, zustand, material, or beschreibung. This leaves most parameters undocumented.

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 ('Create') and resource ('named prop (Requisite)') within the project. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from lab_prop_ansichten by naming that sibling and its separate cost, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening 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 directs the agent to use lab_prop_ansichten for generating views, noting that it costs credits. This provides a clear alternative for a related task, though it does not discuss other possible alternatives like lab_list_props or lab_create_character.

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