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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds useful behavioral context by stating 'Nur angegebene Felder werden geändert' (partial update). It also explains publish timing options, but it omits the guest-link parameter and its privacy implications, which are behaviorally significant.

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?

The description is a single dense sentence with no wasted preamble and is front-loaded with the action. However, the long parenthetical enumerations make it harder to scan, and the omission of guest slightly undermines completeness.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers most editable fields and the partial-update behavior. It is incomplete because it does not mention the guest parameter at all and gives no meaning for package_id, which is 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 60%, so the description must add meaning beyond the schema. It names most editable fields and gives examples for color and publish timing, but it completely omits the guest parameter and package_id, leaving important semantics to the schema alone.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Ändert') and resource ('eines Lernpakets') and enumerates the editable fields, making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes package-level editing from item-level editing only implicitly through the resource name, with no explicit sibling comparison.

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?

The description states what can be changed but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives such as update_support_item or create_support_package. Usage is implied only by the verb and resource.

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