entwurf setzen

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive write, so the baseline bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful side-effect detail (the W-ID, versions and frozen copies remain; copies inherit the new title) and the confirmation gating, but is silent on permissions, reversibility of the title change, and error behavior. It adds real context beyond annotations without fully covering the mutation's behavior.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, each carrying distinct information (scope, mutation target, preserved entities, confirmation gate), with the write action front-loaded. No filler.

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 write semantics, the invariants it preserves, the routing to the sibling, and the confirmation requirement. An agent has what it needs to call it correctly.

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?

With 75% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description reinforces the meaning of both titel and bestaetigt (mandatory user confirmation before anything changes, otherwise the response carries the follow-up question), which goes beyond the schema text. The fall parameter is undocumented in both places, which keeps this from a 5.

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: changing the title of an existing draft (Entwurf), opening with the emphasized "SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE" framing. It explicitly names the sibling entwurf_erfassen as the tool that still handles status/file changes, so an agent can separate the two without opening schemas.

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?

Names the alternative (entwurf_erfassen) and the exact condition that routes to it (status and file changes). It also states a clear precondition: only call with bestaetigt=true after asking the user, which is explicit when/when-not guidance.

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