dokument ordnen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent ('SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE'). It adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the underlying file is not modified (metadata-only write) and the call is gated behind explicit user confirmation — the latter is a behavioral trait no annotation expresses.

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 the write intent in capitals, then scope, then invariants and gating. The long parenthetical field list is dense but it is the payload that makes the tool callable, so it earns its space.

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 gated mutation with no output schema and a nested 'felder' object, the description covers what is changed, what is not changed, and the confirmation requirement (also reinforced in the schema for bestaetigt). Missing only a pointer on how field keys map to expected values for non-Textstand fields.

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 50% and the description compensates by enumerating the permissible 'felder' keys (Titel, Datum, Art, Stand, Themen, Anlage, Personen, Verweise, Notiz, Textstand) including the accepted values for Textstand. It leaves 'fall' and 'dokument' unexplained, but the hardest-to-guess parameter is meaningfully documented.

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 (Ordnungsangaben eines Dokuments ändern) and enumerates exactly which metadata fields are affected. The clause 'Die Datei selbst bleibt unverändert' cleanly separates it from siblings like dokument_verschieben or datei_ablegen that touch the file itself.

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: only call with bestaetigt=true after asking the user. It does not name alternative tools or say when metadata ordering is not the right action, but the gating condition is clear enough that the agent knows the required workflow.

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