aufgabe setzen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it is a write to the case file and requires a user-confirmation gate via bestaetigt=true. It does not detail permissions or side effects beyond the confirmation workflow.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the critical write warning. Every sentence carries distinct information: write scope, action semantics, and the confirmation requirement. 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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: it writes to the case file, what it updates, and the confirmation requirement. Annotations cover safety. Minor gap is that 'fall' remains unexplained, but overall an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 33%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains that erledigt toggles done/open, that faellig and detail are optional changes, and that bestaetigt gates the whole operation. Only 'fall' lacks any semantic explanation in either description or 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: set a task as done or open, optionally changing due date or detail. The write intent is front-loaded with 'SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE.' It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'aufgabe_anlegen' by updating an existing task, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear precondition for invocation: only with bestaetigt=true after asking the user. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like aufgabe_anlegen or frist_setzen, nor does it state exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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