notiz anlegen

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, consistent with the description's 'SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE'. Beyond that, the description discloses a genuine behavioral trait the annotations do not: the confirmation gate requiring bestaetigt=true after user consultation. It does not state permissions or reversibility, 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 filler: the write action is capitalized first, then the operation, then the guard condition. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile and with no output schema to explain, the description supplies the key operational constraint (confirmation before writing). The gap is the undocumented titel/text parameters.

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 only 25% (only bestaetigt is described), so the description must carry weight. It implies fall = the case ('in einem Fall') and restates the bestaetigt condition, but adds no meaning for titel or text. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial compensation.

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: 'Ordnungsnotiz in einem Fall anlegen' plus the emphasized 'SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE'. An agent knows this creates an organizational note on a case file. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of 5.

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 a concrete precondition for use: 'Nur mit bestaetigt=true nach Rückfrage beim Nutzer' — the note may only be written after confirming with the user. It does not compare against alternatives (e.g., journal_schreiben or entwurf_erfassen), 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.