fall anlegen

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

Annotations only declare this is a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it writes into the case file ('SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE'), creates a fixed identifier plus folder structure, and enforces a confirmation gate that blocks the write without bestaetigt=true. It still omits error/return behavior, but that is a smaller gap given annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the critical write warning in caps, then the action, then the confirmation constraint. No filler; only slight gain possible from naming the key parameters.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema and 40% schema coverage, the description covers the safety-critical confirmation requirement and the folder/ID side effect, but leaves what titel, ziel, and bereich control, and what the tool returns, unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is only 40% (rolle and bestaetigt documented, ziel/titel/bereich not). The description only restates the bestaetigt condition already present in the schema and adds no meaning for titel, ziel, or the large bereich enum, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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: 'Neuen Fall mit fester Kennung und Ordnerstruktur anlegen' – creating a new case with a fixed identifier and folder structure. It does not distinguish itself from similar siblings such as verfahren_anlegen, but the action and artifact are unambiguous.

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?

Provides one important precondition – only call with bestaetigt=true after asking the user – which is real usage guidance. However, it offers no when-to-use context relative to the many sibling creation tools (verfahren_anlegen, beteiligter_anlegen, etc.), leaving selection largely to inference.

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