vorlage fuellen

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it writes into the case file, copies to 06 Entwürfe, never overwrites, fills only four specific placeholders while leaving others blank, and gates execution on user confirmation. This complements destructiveHint=false with concrete 'what gets created / what stays untouched' detail.

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 all-caps 'SCHREIBT IN DIE AKTE' write indicator, then destination and placeholders. The placeholder enumeration is dense but earns its place; overall efficient with little waste.

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 declare the safety profile and with no output schema, the description covers destination, non-overwrite, placeholder filling, and the confirmation gate. An agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 75% and the schema already documents ziel's default naming and bestaetigt's meaning. The description mainly restates the confirmation flow and template source rather than adding syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields, so it stays near baseline.

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: creates a draft from a writing template and copies it to '06 Entwürfe' of the case. It distinguishes itself from siblings entwurf_erfassen/entwurf_setzen by being template-driven and references vorlagen_auflisten for the source 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?

Clearly states the precondition 'Nur mit bestaetigt=true nach Rückfrage beim Nutzer' and points to vorlagen_auflisten for template names. It gives context but does not explicitly contrast when to choose this over entwurf_erfassen or entwurf_setzen.

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