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

Annotations already declare it non-read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety bar is lower. The description usefully adds that document content is preserved and only the design changes, plus that a preview card can call it, but says nothing about what happens with an invalid entwurf_id or what is returned.

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 short sentences, all front-loaded, with the trigger condition first and the invariants after. The closing note about the preview card is unusual but genuinely informative rather than 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?

For a four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers intent, scope, the required identifier and the key invariant that content is untouched. The only real gap is that it does not indicate what the caller receives back after the change.

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%, with enum and default values already documenting dokument, vorlage and akzentfarbe. The description only adds the requirement emphasis on entwurf_id and ties the tool to user intent; it adds no format or edge-case detail 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?

The description names a concrete verb-and-resource pair: changing the template (Vorlage) or accent colour of a CV/cover letter. It scopes the operation to documents 'created in this chat', which implicitly separates it from the creation tools (lebenslauf_erstellen, anschreiben_erstellen), though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear trigger ('when the user wants a different template or accent colour') and a scope restriction ('created in this chat'), plus the note that the preview card also invokes it. It stops short of stating when not to use it or what to do if the entwurf_id is unknown.

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