quelle eintragen

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

Annotations only declare the write/open-world/destructive triad; the description adds material behavior beyond that: same title overwrites an existing entry (upsert semantics) and the write only proceeds after explicit user confirmation. It omits return-shape detail, though the bestaetigt schema note partly covers the 'no confirmation' response.

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 operation ('SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE') and then the resource, sibling routing, overwrite rule, and confirmation gate. Dense but every sentence carries a distinct constraint; no filler.

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 with no output schema and only basic annotations, the description supplies routing, overwrite semantics, and the confirmation gate. Return behavior is only implied via the bestaetigt schema note, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 already 83%, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description paraphrases titel (Norm/Entscheidung) and geprueft (Abrufdatum) but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Fallbezogene Rechtsquelle in der Akte vermerken') and enumerates the payload (Norm, Entscheidung, amtliche Seite mit Abrufdatum). It explicitly names the sibling it is NOT for ('der gemeinsame Zugangskatalog ... Werkzeug quellen_katalog'), so an agent can separate it from quellen_katalog without opening a schema.

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 clear routing context: case-bound sources go here, shared-catalog sources go to quellen_katalog. It also states the confirmation precondition ('Nur mit bestaetigt=true nach Rückfrage beim Nutzer'). No explicit exclusion list beyond the catalog split, but the when-to-use is well covered.

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