filter_dataset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the active-dataset side effect, that the history is cleared, and that saving changes is blocked afterwards to protect the original. These are non-obvious, high-impact consequences an agent must know before calling.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose sentence first, then behavioral warnings, then Args, then Returns. Some redundancy (the filtered-dataset concept is restated across sentences) and the Returns block duplicates the existing output schema, costing a little tightness.

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?

An output schema exists, so the Returns block is optional, and the destructive/warning behavior is covered. Given nested-object parameters with zero schema description coverage, the definition is largely complete, though it omits how the two optional filters combine and the exact lifetime of the no-save restriction.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it supplies a concrete address example ({"thoroughfareName": "Stakenholt"}) and explains borderCoordinates as a rectangular area with a coordinate-list example. It leaves some ambiguity (whether the two filters are exclusive, what happens when neither is given), which keeps it from a 5.

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 ('Filtert das Dataset nach Adressen oder Koordinaten') and the side effect that distinguishes it ('setzt das gefilterte Dataset als aktives Dataset'). It also names load_dataset as the way back to the original, so an agent can separate it from sibling reload/create tools.

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 context: subsequent calls operate only on filtered buildings, and load_dataset() restores the original. The warning that no changes can be saved after filtering implicitly tells the agent not to filter when edits are needed. It stops short of explicitly stating when to choose filtering over analyse_dataset or how the tool relates to save/snapshot siblings.

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