beispiel laden

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

Annotations already declare that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. The description adds the uppercase warning 'SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE', the next-free-identifier assignment, and the user-confirmation requirement. It does not detail persistence or permission requirements beyond that, but the added confirmation workflow is meaningful.

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 a strong warning, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds distinct information: side effect, purpose, identifier behavior, and confirmation condition.

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?

Complete enough for a one-parameter mutation tool: purpose, side effect, identifier behavior, and confirmation workflow are stated. Only the return value or response shape is left unspecified, which is minor since no output schema exists.

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 100%, so the single 'bestaetigt' parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description repeats the confirmation condition but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: it creates the supplied example case (fictional) as a new case, for testing, and assigns the next free identifier. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the generic 'fall_anlegen' sibling through 'Beispielakte' and 'zum Ausprobieren', but does not name an alternative tool 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 clear usage context ('zum Ausprobieren') and a hard precondition: only with bestaetigt=true after asking the user. No explicit alternative tool is named, but the confirmation gate and testing purpose make the intended usage clear.

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