aufgabe anlegen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is partly covered, but the description adds a genuinely new behavioral trait: a confirmation-before-write workflow where nothing changes without bestaetigt=true. It does not describe side effects such as notifications or what a successful response contains beyond the schema note.

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?

Three tight fragments, with the most important constraint ('SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE') front-loaded ahead of the action and the confirmation requirement. No waste, though the telegraphic style leaves intent slightly implicit.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description plus the bestaetigt schema note convey the key non-obvious behavior (the confirmation round-trip and the returned question). For a 6-parameter write tool it is largely complete, with the only gap being the undocumented fall/titel/detail parameters.

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 only 50%: quelle, faellig and bestaetigt are documented but fall, titel and detail are not. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so at this borderline coverage it neither compensates nor over-explains.

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 states a clear verb+resource+scope: 'Aufgabe in einem Fall anlegen' (create a task within a case), reinforced by 'SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE'. It does not differentiate from the sibling aufgabe_setzen, which appears to touch the same resource area, so it falls short of the top mark.

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?

It gives an explicit gating condition: only invoke with bestaetigt=true after asking the user. This is clear usage context. However, it offers no comparison or exclusion against the sibling aufgabe_setzen, so it is not a full when/when-not/alternative treatment.

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