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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false; the description adds real substance: the output is an editable Word file the teacher can print and view as PDF, and share=true publishes it via link. It stops short of saying what the call returns (e.g. file id or link payload), which is the one meaningful gap.

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 purpose and placement, then the Markdown dialect, then the flags — a sensible ordering with no filler. It is dense to the point of being one long run-on sentence, and the Markdown syntax list could be compressed, but every clause carries usable information.

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?

For a 6-param write tool with no output schema, the description covers placement, content format, formatting flags and sharing behavior. Missing only the return value/shape and any note on overwrite behavior when a file with the same title already exists.

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 50% and the description compensates well: the class/class_id precedence is spelled out, and the two boolean params that have no schema description at all (large, share) are given concrete meaning, as is the Markdown subset for content. Only title gets no added value beyond 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 verb ("legt ... ab") plus the resource (self-written material as a .docx in the Materialien) and enumerates concrete examples (Arbeitsblatt, Lesetext, Wortliste). An agent can distinguish it from save_template or save_class without opening a 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?

Gives explicit routing logic — with class/class_id it lands in the class, otherwise in the Sammlung — and names the sibling widget_action qr as the follow-up for turning a share link into a QR code. No explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, which keeps it short of a 5.

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