elster_form_new

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: Datenübernahme is 'none by default', the run halts at the form's Startseite (i.e., it does not persist or submit), and the return mirrors elster_form_page. It still omits session/auth prerequisites and what failure states look like.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ending on the next-step routing. Zero filler; every clause conveys new information.

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 multi-step initialization tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main stages, the stopping point, the return type by reference, and the required follow-up. Only the authentication/session preconditions are left unstated.

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 80%, so the schema already explains form, anlagen, takeover, and importEdaten. The description only reinforces defaults ('none by default') and does not add format or syntax detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Starts a NEW form') and enumerates the concrete flow it performs (year, Datenübernahme, Anlagenauswahl, eDaten import). The capitalized NEW implicitly separates it from elster_form_open, but it never names that sibling, so differentiation relies on inference.

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 forward guidance ('Follow with elster_form_save to persist it as a draft') and notes defaults, but says nothing about when to choose this over the other start tools (elster_form_open, elster_est_start, elster_ustva_start) or which situations it is not suited for.

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