ereignis eintragen

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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write, but the description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: it writes into the case file and requires a two-step confirm-after-asking flow, with nothing changed unless bestaetigt=true. It does not describe failure modes or what the response contains when unconfirmed, keeping it below 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?

Front-loaded with the operation type ('SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE') and kept to three sentences. The middle field enumeration is long but functional; there is no filler or repetition.

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 23-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the field scope, and the critical confirmation gate. It omits any statement about the return payload or behavior on rejection, which would fully close the loop.

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 83%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description's field list (Zeitpunkt, Überschrift, Art, Darstellung, Kernereignis, Personen, Belege, Betrag, Belegstand, Terminstatus) largely recaps those properties without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Ereignis in die Chronologie eines Falls eintragen') and enumerates the fields it populates, so the action is unmistakable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling ereignis_setzen, which an agent would reasonably confuse it with.

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 — which is actionable usage guidance. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over ereignis_setzen or other sibling write tools, so it is not a 5.

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