beteiligter setzen

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description discloses that this is a write, that only passed fields change (partial update), that the P-Kennung is preserved for referential integrity, and that a confirmation flag gates the write. That is meaningful behavioral context; it lacks detail on the refusal/response path or failure modes, so not a 5.

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 sentences with a front-loaded, all-caps warning ('SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE') that surfaces the risk immediately. Every sentence carries weight, with no redundancy.

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 9-param write tool with 44% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, the partial-update contract, reference safety, and the confirmation guard. What remains uncovered is minor (e.g., the role of the 'fall' parameter) and largely handled by the schema.

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 only 44% across 9 params, but the description compensates by enumerating the six mutable fields (Name, Rolle, Funktion, Anschrift, Kontakt, Aktenzeichen) and the P-Kennung-preservation rule. It adds real meaning beyond the schema, though 'fall' and the confirmation mechanics remain thin in the description.

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 (existing Beteiligten ändern) and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. The word 'Vorhandenen' implicitly distinguishes it from the create sibling beteiligter_anlegen, but the sibling is never named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Nur mit bestaetigt=true nach Rückfrage beim Nutzer' gives an explicit precondition/confirmation workflow, which is clear usage guidance. It does not, however, name the alternative sibling (beteiligter_anlegen) or state the when-not case for creation, so it stops short of a 5.

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