annahme_entscheiden

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the server sets the Pruefzeitpunkt, that the database rejects calls without Beleg and Pruefer, and why tatsaechliche_kosten matters for 'widerlegt'. It does not describe return values or all side effects on the assumption record, but the disclosed constraints are substantive and useful.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first sentence and then adds only high-value constraints and rationale. Despite covering nine parameters, there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 covers the core call contract, mandatory fields, server behavior, and the conditional actual-cost field. However, it does not mention what happens if annahme_id is missing or invalid, what the tool returns, or how belegrang should be used in practice. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 67%, and the description adds meaning where the schema is thin: it ties geprueft_von to the mandatory Pruefer requirement, explains tatsaechliche_kosten as the comparison enabling evaluation of the original estimate, and clarifies why no caller-provided timestamp exists. The remaining parameters already have 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 opening phrase 'Eine Annahme bestaetigen oder widerlegen' names a specific action and resource, clearly indicating this tool confirms or refutes an assumption. It is distinct from siblings like annahme_erfassen or annahme_liste, but no sibling is explicitly named, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 actionable usage context: 'Beleg und Pruefer sind Pflicht' and the server-set timestamp clarify how to call the tool correctly, while 'Bei status='widerlegt' gehoert ... tatsaechliche_kosten dazu' adds a conditional rule. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives such as annahme_erfassen or annahme_liste, so usage guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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