freigabe_setzen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: ambiguous ids are rejected rather than guessed, comma-separated lists or wildcards are refused rather than split up, the way back from 'offen' to 'intern' is explicitly allowed (reversibility), and access_log side effects are disclosed. This exceeds what a normal description discloses for a mutation 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?

A single dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the core purpose and the three states, then moves to edge cases, reversibility, and logging. Every sentence earns its place; the migrate_freigabe.py aside is the only optional element and it still adds routing context.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers side effects (access_log), reversibility, default state, and rejection edge cases. The only absent detail is the success/error response shape, which matters little for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema: for eintrag_id it explains ambiguous-id rejection and wildcard refusal (schema only says 'no list, no pattern'), and for stufe it clarifies that 'intern' is the default state.

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 ('Decide') plus resource (visibility level for ONE entry) with three named states ('offen', 'intern', 'gesperrt'). The explicit 'ONE entry' scope and the contrast with a binding 'norm decision' distinguish it from decision-related siblings like annahme_entscheiden or knowledge_freigeben.

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?

Clearly frames when it applies: single lesson or node entry, individual decisions only, with lists/wildcards refused rather than split. The non-binding note and migrate_freigabe.py reference imply bulk or binding decisions belong elsewhere, though no alternative sibling is named by tool name.

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