datei ablegen

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it declares the no-overwrite guarantee ('Überschreibt nie eine vorhandene Datei'), the post-write side effect of registering the file in the Bestand so it receives a D-Kennung, and the confirmation gate that suppresses all changes when bestaetigt is absent. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking a write tool.

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-loads the write intent in a short capitalized lead, then adds four dense sentences covering scope, restrictions, side effects, and the confirmation gate. Nearly every sentence earns its place, with only mild redundancy between the allowed-areas statement and the locked-areas statement.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation, its restrictions, its side effects, and the confirmation protocol, including what the response contains when confirmation is missing. The only material gap is guidance on how it relates to the overlapping note/draft tools.

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 67%, and the description compensates by explaining the allowed bereich values and, critically, that the other areas are locked out, plus the semantics of the bestaetigt gate and the response when it is false. It adds real constraint meaning beyond the enum itself, though 'fall' and 'unterordner' receive no added context.

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 ('SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE', 'Textdatei in einem Fall anlegen') and names the concrete artifacts it produces (Notiz, Vermerk, Entwurf). It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like notiz_anlegen or entwurf_erfassen, whose names overlap with the artifact types it claims to create.

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 an explicit precondition ('Nur mit bestaetigt=true nach Rückfrage beim Nutzer') and a hard scoping rule (only areas 01/06/07; 02-05 and 08 locked). It stops short of routing the agent away from the overlapping siblings, so the when-to-use is clear but the when-to-use-instead is not.

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