sicherung erstellen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. Beyond that it discloses the confirmation gate and a side effect not captured by annotations (a copy to the second target), which is genuinely useful behavioral context.

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 mutation warning ('SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE') followed by what is produced and the gating condition. 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?

With no output schema, the description covers the write action, the artifact produced, the secondary copy, and the confirmation requirement. It could say more about what happens on failure or what the non-confirmed response looks like, but the essentials are present.

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 100% and the schema already explains bestaetigt in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds the workflow meaning — that true is required and only after a user check — reinforcing the schema's semantics.

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: create a verified ZIP backup of the whole project plus a copy to a second target. It is distinguishable from the sibling sicherung_probe (a probe/test) by the word 'Geprüfte' and by naming the copy step, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 clear precondition: only call with bestaetigt=true and only after asking the user ('nach Rückfrage beim Nutzer'). It does not, however, point to alternatives like sicherung_probe for a dry run, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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