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

Goes far beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining that 'schliessen' is reversible and preserves the entry, while 'loeschen' permanently removes the entry and its matches irreversibly. It even advises asking the user before deleting and suggesting 'schliessen' as a safer alternative. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a mutating 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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core action and then walks through the three options in a logical order. Every sentence adds either a behavioral consequence or a usage constraint, with no wasted words or repetition of schema fields.

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 three subtle state transitions, no output schema, and destructive consequences, the description is fully sufficient: it covers the source of post_id, the semantics of each action, irreversibility, and required user confirmation before deletion. An agent can safely and correctly select and invoke the tool based solely on this text.

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 already documents both parameters (100% coverage), but the description enriches the aktion enum by detailing what each value does: removes from market but reversible, reactivates and restarts matching, permanently deletes. This turns an opaque enum into actionable decision guidance, though it adds nothing about post_id 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Nimmt einen eigenen Eintrag zurueck oder stellt ihn wieder ein') and then details the three distinct actions (schliessen, wieder_aktivieren, loeschen). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like post_erstellen and post_melden by limiting scope to managing one's own existing posts.

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?

Explicitly instructs that post_id comes from meine_posts and restricts to 'Nur eigene Eintraege', which tells the agent when this tool applies. It also describes which action fits which situation (schliessen as the normal completion, wieder_aktivieren for reopening, loeschen only after explicit user confirmation), but stops short of naming sibling alternatives to exclude.

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