elster_form_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that validation errors return in `errors` while HTTP is always 200, defines exact value semantics per widget type, and covers money rounding/format rules. It omits auth/permission needs and whether a partial set is atomic or what happens to untouched fields, but the error-handling disclosure is unusually valuable.

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?

Every sentence carries operational content: purpose, key format, widget value rules, money formatting, error channel, and repeat-group edge case. It is dense but front-loaded and free of filler, and the money rules genuinely change how an agent formats input.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers keys, value types, money formatting, error surface, and nested repeat-group sub-pages. It stops short of stating whether the whole form saves or only supplied fields, and there is no success-response detail, but 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 50% (only `rid` is documented in the schema). The description compensates heavily for the undocumented `values` object by explaining that keys are a Kennzahl or field name, must match exactly one field, and what value types each widget expects. It materially exceeds the schema for the most important parameter.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: setting plain fields on a page and saving them server-side. It distinguishes itself by covering plain fields, checkboxes, radios, selects, and detached repeat-group sub-pages, which implicitly separates it from siblings like elster_form_add_row or elster_form_press. However, it never names an alternative tool, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It gives strong how-to guidance (key formats, checkbox/radio value conventions, repeat-group sub-page handling), but says nothing about when to reach for this tool versus elster_form_save, elster_form_press, or elster_form_add_row. Usage is strongly implied by scope statements rather than explicitly routed, landing at minimum-viable.

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