verfahren setzen

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

Annotations declare write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context: partial-update semantics ('nur die übergebenen Felder werden geändert'), ID stability and its rationale ('V-Kennung bleibt, damit Fristen ihren Bezug behalten'), and a mandatory confirmation gate. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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-loads the warning 'SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE.' followed by three tight sentences covering scope, update semantics, and the confirmation requirement. No filler; every sentence 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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the mutation contract, ID preservation, and even the response behavior when unconfirmed ('die Antwort enthält dann die Rückfrage'). Minor gaps remain around validation failures or permission requirements, but the core is complete for an update tool.

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 63%, with art, fall and aktenzeichen undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by explaining the partial-update contract (only passed fields change) and the confirmation parameter's effect, though it does not add format details for the unspecified fields.

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 ('Vorhandenes Verfahren ändern') and implicitly differentiates from the create sibling verfahren_anlegen by specifying the procedure must already exist. Enumerates the mutable fields (Art, Stelle, Aktenzeichen, Stand, Ordner) so an agent knows the scope without opening the 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?

Explicitly states the precondition for acting ('Nur mit bestaetigt=true nach Rückfrage beim Nutzer'), which is clear usage context. It does not name alternatives such as verfahren_anlegen for the new-record case, leaving that to inference.

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