Somneo Wecker Loeschen

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real context beyond them: the action is irreversible ('Nicht rückgängig zu machen'), the slot is freed, a prior verification step is required, and the response contains the prior state plus a confirmation. That extra effect-level detail is genuinely useful for a destructive tool.

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?

Three compact sentences: what it does, the irreversibility warning with the prerequisite, and the return shape. No filler, and the destructive warning is front-loaded right after the action.

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 and the description still summarizes the return, so return-value detail is not a gap. The destructive nature, prerequisite, and side effect are all covered; only the slot's value provenance is left thin, which is minor.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'slot' parameter, so the description carries the burden. It only obliquely conveys slot semantics via 'Slot wird freigegeben' and does not state what a valid slot value is or where to obtain it (though the liste reference partially compensates). Baseline-level compensation at best.

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 ('Einen Wecker löschen') and even names the side effect (the slot is released). It references the sibling somneo_wecker_liste as a prerequisite rather than as a competing alternative, so sibling differentiation is implied but not fully explicit.

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 a clear pre-condition ('vorher mit somneo_wecker_liste prüfen') that tells the agent when and how to prepare before calling. It stops short of stating when *not* to use this tool or naming alternative deletion paths.

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