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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that 'schliessen' is reversible and keeps the post, that 'wieder_aktivieren' re-runs matching, and that 'loeschen' permanently removes the post along with matches and cannot be undone. It also adds ownership constraints and a confirmation requirement for destructive deletion.

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 front-loaded with the core operation, then moves through post_id provenance, the three action modes, and the destructive-action warning. Each sentence carries useful information, and the longer length is justified by the three distinct behaviors and the safety requirement.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ownership scope, parameter meaning, action semantics, reversibility, side effects, and a safety protocol. Combined with the annotations, an agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool 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?

Although schema coverage is already 100%, the description adds substantial meaning by explaining each enum value's behavior and consequence. It also clarifies that post_id refers to one's own entry from meine_posts, which is more than the schema itself states.

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 a specific action on a specific resource: managing one's own post by taking it back, reactivating it, or deleting it. It also scopes the tool to 'eigene Eintraege' and names where post_id comes from, making it distinguishable from post creation, reporting, and other sibling tools.

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 explains when to use each of the three actions: 'schliessen' as the normal path when something is done, 'wieder_aktivieren' for closed posts, and 'loeschen' for permanent removal. It also gives a clear guardrail to ask the user before deletion and to suggest 'schliessen' when in doubt.

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