beteiligter anlegen

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

Annotations only say this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write; the description goes well beyond that by declaring 'SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE', that nothing changes without bestaetigt=true, that the call returns the new P-Kennung, and that document/procedure/deadline references will point at that ID. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with an uppercase write warning, then purpose, return value and confirmation gate in three tight sentences. Only 'mit Rolle und wahlweise Funktion' mildly restates the schema, so it is near-waste-free.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the write side effect, the confirmation gate, and the return value, which is what an agent most needs. Edge cases such as duplicate detection or what happens when required fields are missing are left unaddressed, keeping it short of a 5.

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 75%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds the relationship semantics of the returned P-Kennung and reiterates role/function, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. 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 ('anlegen') and resource ('Beteiligter in einem Fall') and enumerates the entity kinds (Person, Gericht, Behörde, Anwalt, Zeuge, Stelle) plus the role/function attributes. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling beteiligter_setzen, so the create-vs-update boundary must be inferred from naming.

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 concrete precondition: 'Nur mit bestaetigt=true nach Rückfrage beim Nutzer', which tells the agent exactly when the call may proceed. It does not, however, name the alternative tool (beteiligter_setzen) for modifying an existing Beteiligter, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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