annahme_erfassen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a rejection rule ('belegrang='gemessen' ohne nicht leeren 'beleg' wird abgelehnt'), the permanent initial state ('beginnt immer auf status='offen''), and the workflow boundary (confirmation/refutation goes through annahme_entscheiden). It does not mention whether the write is idempotent or whether it triggers side effects, but the disclosed validation and status behavior is strong context beyond the schema.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: what the tool is for, why the two params matter, the validation rule, and the workflow boundary. The most important constraint is front-loaded, and there is no 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 12-parameter write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential decision logic and the two required fields. It gives enough to call the tool correctly, though it says nothing about return values, which are absent from the output schema and could matter for confirming the created assumption.

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 58%, so the description should add meaning for the least-documented parameters. It does add crucial semantics for belegrang and kosten_wenn_falsch, and it explains the dependency between belegrang and beleg. However, it leaves the purpose of several other parameters (kategorie, notizen, node_path, projects) entirely to their bare type names, and the schema itself provides descriptions for the important ones. This is adequate but not fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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 names the specific verb and resource ('Eine ANNAHME festhalten'), and immediately distinguishes its purpose: recording an assumption while it is still recognizable as an assumption, not after it has proven wrong. It also separates this tool from the sibling annahme_entscheiden by stating that confirmation/refutation only happens there.

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 frames when to use the tool: record assumptions while still assumptions, before they are confirmed or refuted. It also names the sibling tool annahme_entscheiden as the only path for bestaetigt/widerlegt, and it states the rule that belegrang='gemessen' requires a non-empty beleg, otherwise the entry is rejected. That is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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