legal_put_generator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses merge-not-replace semantics, rejection of unknown keys, the exclusion of switch-bound sections, and a version requirement (cvrt-legal 0.7.0+). It stops short of describing the regeneration side effects or output, but the mutation behavior is substantially clarified.

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-loads the core action in the first clause, then layers merge/refusal rules and the switch caveat. Dense and largely waste-free, though the parenthetical and German term do add a little decoding overhead.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers merge behavior, key rejection, switch coupling and a version prerequisite. It omits any note on what regeneration returns or how conflicts with stored selections resolve, but is otherwise sufficient to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents doc, site, enabled, options and keep. The description adds conceptual meaning to the module/option key handling (merge, refusals) but does not explain the 'keep' parameter's survival semantics, leaving it as baseline elaboration.

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: tick/untick module and option switches and regenerate the generated document, framed as 'the Datenschutz tab over the API'. It clearly reads as a mutation counterpart to legal_get_generator, though it never names that sibling explicitly, so 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?

Gives concrete operating context: selections merge into stored state, unknown module/option keys are refused, and switch-tied sections (Einwilligungsnachweis, Barrierefreiheits-Werkzeug) are not ticked here. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over siblings such as legal_put_generator_library or legal_restore_generator.

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