ereignis setzen

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses crucial mutation semantics: partial updates (only passed fields change), that 'zeitpunkt=genau' strips uncertainty data, and that an empty value deletes a listed chronology field. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs before writing to a case file.

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 most important fact ('SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE') and then layers update semantics and the confirmation rule. It is dense but each clause carries distinct information; only the run-on German phrasing slightly reduces readability.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does cover the confirmation response ('die Antwort enthält dann die Rückfrage'). For a 24-param update tool, the safety and update semantics are adequately covered, though detail on the full parameter set is not.

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% across 24 params, so the schema carries much of the load. The description nonetheless adds meaning the schema does not: the empty-value-clears-field rule for a named group of chronology fields and the special behavior of 'zeitpunkt'. Many parameters remain unexplained, so it is helpful but not exhaustive.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Vorhandenes Ereignis ändern' – change an existing event), and the word 'Vorhandenes' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling ereignis_eintragen (create). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the create-alternative explicitly.

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?

The confirmation gate is stated well ('Nur mit bestaetigt=true nach Rückfrage beim Nutzer'), which is a genuine usage rule. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-ereignis_eintragen routing and no exclusions; the 'existing event only' scope is only implied.

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