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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals meaningful behavioral details: archiving does not delete the conversation, and it will reappear when someone writes anew. It also clarifies the side effect of 'gelesen' on the counter. This adds substantial context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact sentences, each earning its place. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the two action definitions and a helpful parameter source hint. There is no redundancy or 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, both action effects, and the source of the required chat_id. There are no obvious gaps an agent would need to fill before invoking 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 the schema already covers both parameters, the description adds real semantic value by explaining exactly what each enum value does and by indicating the source of chat_id via chats_ansehen. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal 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 tool's purpose ('Raeumt eine Unterhaltung auf') and then precisely defines both allowed actions, 'gelesen' and 'archivieren', with their effects. This distinguishes it from any sibling tool by naming the unique operations it performs on a conversation.

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 gives practical context for when to use each action: 'gelesen' is for fixing the unread counter, 'archivieren' is for hiding a conversation without deleting it. It also tells the agent where to obtain the required input ('Die chat_id kommt aus chats_ansehen'), which provides clear workflow guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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