frist setzen

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: "Nur die übergebenen Felder werden geändert" documents patch/partial-update semantics (consistent with destructiveHint=false), and the confirmation flow ("Eine Bestätigung bekommt Prüfdatum und Prüfer") plus the reconciliation step ("das Schema prüft ... Rechnung, Beleg und offene Marker") are disclosed. Does not cover rate limits or error 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?

Dense, front-loaded opening ("SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE") and every clause adds a distinct fact (scope, patch behavior, confirmation metadata, confirmation gate). Slightly jargon-heavy and terse, but no filler sentences.

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 14-parameter write tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the critical confirmation workflow and even mentions the non-confirmed response ("die Antwort enthält dann die Rückfrage"). However, most field semantics remain undocumented, leaving real gaps for an agent filling out this call.

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 36% across 14 parameters, so the description should compensate but largely does not. It explains the confirmation gate (bestaetigt), the review metadata (Prüfdatum/Prüfer) and the partial-update rule, but the majority of parameters (art, titel, berechnung, rechtsgrundlage, etc.) get no added meaning.

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 action ("SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE") and resource ("Vorhandene Frist oder vorhandenen Termin ändern"), so the agent knows this mutates an existing deadline/appointment. The verb "ändern" implicitly distinguishes it from the insert-style sibling frist_eintragen, but no sibling is named outright.

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 a clear gating condition: "Nur mit bestaetigt=true nach Rückfrage beim Nutzer" — the tool should only be invoked after user confirmation. "Vorhandene ... ändern" also signals the precondition that a deadline must already exist. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so no exclusions are given.

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