elster_form_add_row

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it fills the new-row template and COMMITS the row ('Eintrag übernehmen'), signalling a persistent mutation rather than a local draft. However, it omits permission/auth needs, what happens on duplicate rows or missing groups, and any return/error behavior, leaving gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 action ('Adds one row...'), then the mechanism, then the input sourcing. Dense and mostly earns its space, though the parenthetical German/English pairs add minor noise that a purely normative reader doesn't need.

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 3-parameter, nested-object, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers the commit semantics and input sourcing but leaves 'rid' unaddressed and says nothing about failure modes or persistence details. Adequate but not complete for the complexity involved.

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. It adds real meaning for 'group' (an inline repeat group / Mzb, with an example) and implies 'values' follows the same key and money rules as elster_form_set, but it never explains the shape of 'values' or the 'rid' parameter at all, leaving two of three parameters under-specified.

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: 'Adds one row to an inline repeat group', with a concrete domain example (Mzb / Arbeitsmittel 'AufwendungenArbeitsmittel'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like elster_form_delete_row, elster_form_set, and elster_form_save by naming the exact mutation it performs.

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?

Tells the agent where inputs come from ('Group names and template keys come from elster_form_page → groups') and routes validation/format rules to elster_form_set. It stops short of stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions or contrasting with elster_form_set as an alternative action, so it's clear context rather than full routing.

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