Loggimo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the core mutation (add) and the optional column defaulting to the first column, which adds useful behavior beyond the schema. However, it does not mention return values, potential errors, or effects such as card placement, which are relevant for a write operation.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a parameter clarification. There is no redundant information, and every sentence adds value.

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 is adequate for a simple create operation with three parameters, covering the main purpose and the key optional behavior. However, it lacks information about the return value and any failure conditions, which would be expected for a mutation tool, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a modest gap.

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?

The description adds meaning to the 'column' parameter by explaining that it is optional and defaults to the first column, which is not stated in the input schema. It does not provide details for 'board_id', but that is an ID field and the schema covers it implicitly. The schema coverage is 67%, so the description helps fill the gap for the optional behavior.

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 clearly states 'Fuegt einem Board eine Karte hinzu' (adds a card to a board), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_column or create_board by explicitly naming the target resource (card and board). The additional clarification about the column parameter further specifies the tool's behavior.

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 implies the tool is used for adding a card to a board, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like move_card or update_card. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The column default hint offers some operational guidance, but no explicit alternative comparison.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning side effects, permissions, reversibility, or return behavior. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core purpose.

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 tool is relatively simple with a minimal schema, and the description states the core purpose. However, it omits details about return values, error handling, or any prerequisites, making it minimally complete but not thorough.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning or relationship of the parameters (name, board_id) beyond the schema. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool adds a new column to a board, using specific verb 'adds' and a clear resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_card, add_entry, and add_field by specifying the target as a board and the entity as a column.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as add_field or create_board. It lacks any explicit context, exclusions, or alternative mentions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the 'values' object's flexibility (field names or IDs), checkbox handling with true/false, and the fallback to get_tracker. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't address error cases or response behavior.

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 appropriately concise, consisting of three short sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide necessary parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool has only two parameters with a nested object, and no output schema exists. The description covers the key aspects: how to structure values, how to handle checkboxes, and how to discover field names. However, it omits details about required fields or error handling, which slightly reduces completeness for a mutation tool.

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?

The schema only provides minimal descriptions ('Feldname/-ID => Wert' and 'ID des Trackers'), but the description enriches both parameters significantly. It explains that keys in 'values' can be either field labels or IDs and specifies that checkbox fields accept true/false, which is essential for correct usage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Fuegt einem Tracker einen neuen Eintrag hinzu' (adds a new entry to a tracker), using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_card, add_column, and add_field which target different entity types.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool, including the prerequisite that field names may need to be known and advises calling get_tracker if not: 'Wenn du die Feldnamen nicht kennst, rufe zuerst get_tracker auf.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one important behavioral fact: 'bestehende Eintraege bleiben erhalten' (existing entries remain). However, it omits other potential side effects, such as whether the new field is applied to all existing entries or whether the operation is reversible.

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, efficient sentence that wastes no words. It front-loads the core action and resource, and adds a parenthetical safety note without bloating the text.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and conditional param requirements (e.g., max only for rating, options only for select), the description is too minimal to provide full context. It does not explain the conditional behavior, return format, or how existing entries are affected beyond preservation.

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 only 33%, with only 'max' and 'options' having descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, leaving key parameters like 'label', 'type', 'required', and 'tracker_id' unexplained. Since the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, the semantic burden is unmet.

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 'Fuegt einem bestehenden Tracker ein neues Feld hinzu' clearly states the action (adding), the resource (existing tracker), and the object (new field). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_column by explicitly targeting trackers.

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 implies a clear use case: when adding a field to an existing tracker. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know when to select this tool over siblings like add_entry or add_column.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that mode defaults to canvas, that kanban uses columns, and the default column names are 'To Do / In Arbeit / Fertig'. However, it does not describe the return value (e.g., whether a board ID is returned), permissions, or side effects beyond creation. This partial disclosure merits a mid-range score.

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 concise sentence that packs all essential information: purpose, mode semantics, and column behavior. There is no fluff or redundancy, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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 creation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core behavior (modes, columns, defaults) effectively. The main gap is the lack of any mention of the return value or what happens after creation, which is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema covers icon and columns but not name or mode. The description adds crucial meaning to mode (explains 'kanban' and 'canvas' options) and columns (only for kanban, with default column names). This compensates for the 50% schema coverage and clarifies the conditional behavior of columns.

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 opens with 'Legt ein neues Board an' (creates a new board), clearly identifying the verb and resource. It further distinguishes the tool by explaining the two modes (kanban vs canvas) and their defaults, which differentiates it from sibling create_* tools (e.g., create_tracker).

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 provides clear context on when to use which mode (kanban with custom columns, canvas as default), but does not explicitly discuss when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives such as create_tracker. It implies usage when creating a board, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavior of field validation (allowed types and options/rating rules) but doesn't mention any side effects, permissions, or return behavior. Since it's a create operation, the action itself is transparent, but additional behavior like idempotency or error handling is not addressed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the second sentence adds necessary details about field types and conditions. No fluff, every sentence contributes to the definition.

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 create tool with a rich schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the allowable field types, and conditional parameters. It doesn't explain return values, but no output schema exists; and since the schema is detailed, the description is adequately complete for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100% and the description largely repeats the schema's parameter information (field types, options, max). The only added detail is the default of 5 for rating's max, which is not in the schema. This small extra bump justifies a score just above the baseline, but since most param semantics come from the schema, a 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('legt an') and resource ('neuen Tracker'), and distinguishes it from siblings like create_board and add_field by focusing on the tracker creation with fields. It also gives a clear scope of what's included (frei definierbare Felder) and lists the allowed field types.

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 implies the usage context: it's for creating a new tracker with custom fields, and provides details on field type constraints which guide when to use it for certain field configurations. It doesn't explicitly contrast with create_board or add_field, but the resource name and wording make the intended use clear, so the context is evident.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and reveals critical traits: deletion is irreversible (unwiderruflich), cascades to columns, cards, and sub-boards, and requires owner permissions. This fully informs the agent of the destructive and authorized nature.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and includes essential caveats. No wasted words.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is deleted, the irreversible/cascading effect, and the permission requirement. Nothing critical 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?

The schema has one parameter, board_id, with no description. The tool description does not explain the parameter, but the tool name and purpose make its meaning obvious. The description adds behavioral context beyond the schema, compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action 'deletes' (loescht) and the resource 'board', distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_card or delete_column. Mentioning sub-boards further specifies the unique scope of this deletion.

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 implies when to use this tool (when deleting an entire board) and notes an owner-only restriction, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the critical trait that deletion is irreversible, which is valuable. However, it does not mention side effects on related data, required permissions, or what the response looks like.

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, short sentence with the action verb first. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple deletion tool, the description covers the essential fact of irreversibility, which is important. However, it lacks details about what happens to associated data (if any), whether confirmation is needed, and what the return value is. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more contextual detail would improve completeness.

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?

The schema shows one required parameter, card_id, with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what card_id means or provide any format details, relying entirely on the parameter name being self-explanatory. This is insufficient given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action 'Loescht' (deletes) and the resource 'Karte' (card), making it unambiguous that this tool is for deleting cards. The additional 'unwiderruflich' (irreversibly) adds a key characteristic, and it distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools like delete_entry or delete_column.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only states the action, leaving the agent to infer that it is used when a card needs to be removed.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive behavior (deletes column and contained cards) and the safeguard that the last column remains. It does not mention permissions or irreversibility, but the core effects are clear.

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?

Two concise sentences, each providing essential information. No filler or redundancy, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 simple deletion tool with two parameters, the description covers the main action, associated card deletion, and the last-column rule. Missing details like return value or error handling are not critical given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema.

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 only 50% (column is described, board_id is not), and the description does not compensate. It adds no parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already provides, missing the opportunity to explain board_id or relationships.

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 clearly states the tool deletes a column and all cards within it, using the verb 'delete' and the resource 'column'. The additional note that the last column remains adds scope clarity, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_card or delete_board.

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 implies usage for deleting columns and notes the last-column limitation, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as delete_card or add_column. The constraint is useful but not framed as usage guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the deletion but does not disclose irreversibility, required permissions, or any side effects on related data. The word 'single' does scope the operation but adds no further transparency.

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 one concise sentence in German, with the verb and object front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary words and is appropriately brief for a simple delete operation.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral warnings, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's implications beyond the basic action.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'a single entry of a tracker', which hints at the relationship between tracker_id and entry_id but does not explicitly define either parameter or their required roles. This is marginal added value over the bare 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 'Loescht einen einzelnen Eintrag eines Trackers' clearly states the action (deletes) and the resource (a single entry of a tracker). This specific wording distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_board or delete_tracker.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without context for selecting this tool.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key limitation (last field cannot be deleted) and the flexibility of accepting ID or name. However, it omits other important aspects such as irreversibility, potential data loss for entries, or error handling, making the disclosure partial but not trivial.

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 two short, direct sentences. It front-loads the action and includes the essential limitation without any redundant wording. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover expected outcomes and side effects. It explains the deletion action and a constraint, but does not state whether the operation is permanent, whether it affects existing data in entries, or what a successful result looks like. These are material gaps for a destructive operation.

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?

The input schema already describes the 'field' parameter as 'Feld-ID oder Feldname', and the description merely repeats this. It adds no information about 'tracker_id', which is left undescribed in both the schema and the description. With only 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter and provides no new semantic value.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Loescht ein Feld eines Trackers' (deletes a field of a tracker). It specifies deletion by field ID or name, which distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_card or delete_column. The action and resource are unambiguous.

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 provides a clear context—deleting fields of a tracker—and includes a restriction: 'Das letzte Feld kann nicht geloescht werden' (the last field cannot be deleted), serving as a when-not condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or elaborate on situations favoring this tool over others, missing the top-tier guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'unwiderruflich' (irreversible) and 'samt aller Felder und Eintraege' (including all fields and entries), which are critical behavioral traits for a destructive operation. This provides meaningful context beyond the mere 'delete' verb.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. The key behavioral caveat (unwiderruflich) is included without expanding length.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the essential context: what is deleted, the irreversibility, and the cascade to related data. It lacks some depth (e.g., return format or auth requirements), but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The schema describes a single required integer param `tracker_id`, and the description does not add any semantic detail about this parameter. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate by explaining the parameter's role or format. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no 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?

The description states 'Loescht einen Tracker unwiderruflich' – a specific verb ('loescht' – deletes) targeting the 'Tracker' resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_board, delete_card, etc. The addition 'samt aller Felder und Eintraege' clarifies the scope of deletion.

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 implies usage for deleting a tracker but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of sibling tools or conditions that would make this tool inappropriate. Usage is inferred from the resource name rather than explicitly stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. The verb 'Zeigt' (shows) implies a read-only operation, and it details the returned card fields, but it does not explicitly state non-mutation, error behavior, or permissions. This is adequate for a simple read tool.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the tool's function and output, the second gives usage guidance. No redundant information, clearly front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the card fields returned and gives usage context. It does not detail column structure or error handling, but for the intended use (deciding card placement), it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema has one parameter, board_id, with 0% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on board_id, but the name is self-explanatory and the tool's purpose ('ein Board') implies its use. Given the simplicity, this does not significantly hinder understanding.

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 clearly states it shows a board with all columns and their cards, listing specific card fields (id, titel, erledigt, farbe, faellig). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_boards or move_board by focusing on the board's internal structure and content.

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 explicitly says to use this to decide where a card belongs before calling move_card, providing context and a related tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., list_boards for board summaries), so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey safety. The verb 'Zeigt' and the use case ('vor add_entry') imply a read-only lookup, and the field list gives return content. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'no side effects' or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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?

Two short sentences, first defines the action, second provides context. No redundancy.

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 simple 1-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description covers the result (all fields) and an actionable use case, making it fully sufficient.

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?

The single parameter tracker_id is fully documented in the schema ('ID des Trackers'), and the description doesn't add further parameter detail, meeting the baseline.

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 'Zeigt' (shows) with 'einen einzelnen Tracker' (a single tracker), clearly distinguishing it from list_trackers. It also enumerates the returned fields (id, label, typ, optionen, pflicht), giving precise scope.

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 second sentence explicitly recommends using this tool 'vor add_entry' (before add_entry) to learn exact field names, providing a clear use case. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but gives context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds context about user scope and board types, which is useful. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, ordering, or error behavior. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and scope without unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple list tool.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what is listed and for whom, though it could optionally mention the return format. It does not reference alternatives, but this is less critical for a basic list operation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description rightly omits parameter details. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'listet alle Boards/Roadmaps' (lists all boards/roadmaps), with a parenthetical clarifying board types (Kanban or Pinnwand). It also specifies the scope 'des Nutzers' (of the user), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_board or list_trackers.

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 usage context is implied—use this tool to list all of the user's boards—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_board or list_trackers. No exclusions or alternative pointers are provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation (listing) and the nature of results (field names and values), but does not explicitly state it is read-only, how sorting is determined beyond 'letzten', or any limitations like pagination. This is reasonable but not exhaustive.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and output content. Every word is informative, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple list operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and result format. It could mention ordering or default limit, but the schema provides limit details, and 'letzten' hints at the ordering.

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%, with 'limit' already described in the schema and 'tracker_id' self-explanatory. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific detail, but the schema plus the tool name are sufficient for the two simple parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Listet'), the resource ('Eintraege eines Trackers'), and adds the scope ('letzten' meaning latest) plus output content ('mit Feldnamen und Werten'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_trackers and list_boards, which target different resources.

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 implies the tool is for listing entries of a tracker, and the mention of 'letzten' indicates it returns recent entries. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool is a read-only listing operation and includes field details, but it does not disclose output format, ordering, pagination, or potential authorization requirements.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and has no redundant or filler wording. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description states what is returned (trackers plus their fields) and gives usage context. It could mention return format or exceptions, but for a simple list tool it is adequately complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the description clarifies the default scope ('alle Tracker des Nutzers'), which adds meaning beyond the empty input schema. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 clearly states the tool lists all trackers (Erfassungslisten) of the user along with their fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_boards and get_tracker by specifying the resource (trackers) and the included detail (fields).

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 explicitly says to use this tool to see what already exists before adding entries, giving a concrete use case. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for simple selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key side effects: the board becomes a sub-board, a reference card is created in the target, and setting target_board_id=0 moves it to top level. It also states the permission requirement. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 three short sentences, each providing necessary information: the core action, the top-level exception, and the access constraint. No redundant or filler content, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (hierarchy change with side effects), the description fully covers what happens when moving a board, including the reference card creation, the top-level reset, and ownership requirements. No output schema exists, but for a mutation tool the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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% and both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely reinforces the target_board_id=0 behavior already documented. Thus a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Verschiebt ein bestehendes Board') and the target resource ('in ein anderes Board'), distinguishing it from siblings like move_card. It also explains the resulting sub-board relationship and reference card, making the purpose explicit.

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 provides clear context for use: moving a board into another board or to the top level with target_board_id=0. It also states the owner-only restriction. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like move_card, but the resource differs enough that no confusion arises.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does add the constraint 'des gleichen Boards' (same board) and the default for position, but it does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects, or return behavior. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 two concise sentences in German, front-loaded with the action verb and immediately clarifying the key constraints. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main behavioral points: moving within same board, position semantics, and a usage rationale. It does not mention return values, but for such a straightforward operation the description is largely complete when combined with the schema.

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 only 33% (only column is described). The description adds meaning for 'position' by explaining top/bottom and default bottom, which the schema does not. However, it does not clarify 'card_id' beyond the name, and 'column' is already described in the schema. It partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 clearly states the tool moves a card to another column within the same board, using the specific verb 'Verschiebt' (moves) and resource 'Karte' (card). This distinguishes it from move_board and update_card by specifying the scope (same board) and the action (column change).

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 implicitly suggests usage ('Damit kannst du Karten dorthin schieben, wo sie hingehoeren') but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like update_card, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. It gives a general purpose but lacks explicit usage guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states the action 'renames a column' without mentioning side effects, permissions, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. This is minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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, compact sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage. The description is too terse to provide sufficient context: it omits what the parameters mean, how the rename affects the board, and any operational details. A simple rename still requires more explanation to be used 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?

The schema has low description coverage (33%), with only 'column' having any explanation ('current name or ID'). The description fails to clarify the roles of 'board_id' or 'new_name', and does not compensate for the schema's gaps. For a tool with three required parameters, this is a significant omission.

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 'Benennt eine Spalte um' (Renames a column) uses a specific verb (rename) and resource (column), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes from siblings like update_card or add_column, as no other tool explicitly handles renaming.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing column, or when to prefer rename_column over update_board or other tools. The description gives no contextual usage clues.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the ownership requirement but omits potential errors (e.g., non-owner attempt), side effects, or return value behavior. For a mutation tool, this is minimal disclosure.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes the essential permission constraint. Every word contributes value with no fluff.

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 tool is simple and the description covers the core purpose and permission requirement. However, it lacks details on error conditions (e.g., non-owner) or the effect of partial updates, though 'und/oder' implies flexibility. Given no annotations, a bit more context would have been beneficial.

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?

The schema has 0% property descriptions, so the description's mention of 'Name und/oder Icon' adds clear meaning: both fields are optional and can be updated individually. This directly compensates for the schema gap. It does not detail board_id, but that is self-explanatory as the target identifier.

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 clearly states the action ("Aendert" = changes), the resource (Board), and the specific fields that can be updated (Name und/oder Icon). It also includes a permission constraint (nur Eigentuemer), which distinguishes it from siblings like update_card or rename_column.

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 implies usage by naming the resource and fields, and mentions the owner-only restriction. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The owner constraint is a prerequisite but not a full usage guideline.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that one or more fields can be changed ('und/oder' = and/or) and lists allowed color values, but does not mention partial update behavior, permissions, return value, or error conditions. It adds some context beyond schema but lacks depth.

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 concise two sentences. It front-loads the action and fields, then adds the color enumeration. No unnecessary words or redundant details; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description is the sole source of behavioral context. It covers the core purpose but lacks guidance on when to use it, preconditions, return behavior, or error handling. The description is too minimal for a tool with this complexity.

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 only 17% (only due_date has a description), so the description must compensate. It enumerates the updatable fields (title, notes, done, due_date, color) and repeats color enum values, but does not provide additional format or type details beyond what the schema already gives. The field names are self-explanatory, so the added value is modest.

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 clearly states that the tool changes specific card fields (title, note, done status, due date, color) with the verb 'Aendert' (changes) and resource 'Karte' (card). This distinguishes it from sibling update tools (update_board, update_entry) and other card operations (add_card, move_card).

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 implies usage by listing the fields that can be updated, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the key partial-update behavior (only specified fields change). However, it does not mention error handling, permission requirements, idempotency, or return values, which are important for a mutation tool. The description provides some transparency but misses several critical aspects.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then explains the key parameter semantics. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema 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 moderate-complexity tool with three parameters (one nested object) and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the core update behavior and the values parameter. However, it does not mention what the tool returns or any side effects beyond the partial update, and it could be clearer about how field IDs are resolved. Given the lack of annotations, these details would enhance completeness, but the current description is still sufficient for basic use.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It does an excellent job for the 'values' parameter, clarifying that keys are field names or IDs and that only these fields change. Tracker_id and entry_id are self-explanatory from their names and schema, but the description does not need to elaborate. It adds significant semantic value for the most complex parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Aendert Werte eines bestehenden Eintrags' (Changes values of an existing entry) with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_board, update_card, and update_tracker by targeting entries specifically.

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 provides clear usage guidance: 'values' contains only the fields to be changed, and fields not mentioned remain unchanged. This implies it is for partial updates, which helps the agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls 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.

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that fields are changed but does not explain update semantics (partial vs. full), whether the tracker must already exist, error behavior, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 short sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core action and affected fields. It is appropriately concise, though it could add a bit more specificity without becoming verbose.

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?

Given no annotations, output schema, or schema descriptions, the description leaves out critical invocation context such as required parameters, the meaning of reminder values, and how partial updates are handled. This is minimal for a tool that modifies persistent data.

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%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence. It merely lists 'name, icon and/or reminder' which corresponds to schema property names without adding type, value, or format details. It omits the required tracker_id parameter and does not explain the reminder enum values.

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 'Aendert' (changes) with the resource 'Tracker' and lists the specific fields (name, icon, reminder), making its purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling update tools like update_board or update_card by explicitly targeting a tracker.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using create_tracker for a new tracker or delete_tracker for removal. The intended use is only implied by the tool's name and description, with no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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