journal schreiben

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, and the description adds the crucial gate: nothing is written unless the user has explicitly confirmed this exact call. This confirmation requirement is behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not describe the result of a successful write or any permission requirements, so not a 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero padding; the write warning leads. The all-caps opening is emphatic but arguably earns its place for a mutation tool. Nothing is wasted.

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 an append-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the write action, its scope (a case journal) and the confirmation precondition. Remaining gaps (success response, whether entries are editable afterwards) are minor given annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 20% (just bestaetigt), so the description should carry more of the load, but it says nothing about fall, art, titel or text. The confirm-gate sentence only restates what the schema already documents for bestaetigt. Field names and the art enum are largely self-explanatory, which keeps this from a 1.

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 ('Eintrag an das Journal eines Falls anhängen'), so an agent knows this appends a journal entry to a case. The verb 'anhängen' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling journal_lesen, though that sibling is never named. Clear but not fully differentiated by name.

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 and only after asking the user. That is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. journal_lesen for reading) or saying when not to use it at all.

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