Kommentar anhängen

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing that the comment is visible to every user of the tenant, that no API endpoint exists to read, change, or delete comments, that the response returns no identifier for the created comment, and that the write hits real accounting data with no undo path. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before committing an irreversible write.

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 what the tool does, then layers constraints and side effects in a logical order with no filler sentences. It is a touch long and leans on comma splices rather than clean clause separation, but every sentence carries a distinct fact.

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 an irreversible create against live data, the description covers target selection, visibility, the absence of read/update/delete endpoints, and the missing return identifier—even though an output schema exists. Nothing needed to invoke it safely is missing.

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 all three parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the exactly-one-identifier rule and the 'pass as integer, not string' note. The description only restates the either/or constraint, adding no semantics beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (anhängen) plus resource (Kommentar) plus the two supported targets (Beleg oder Zahlung), and the use case is exemplified ('Hinweis an die Buchhaltung, etwa warum ein Beleg noch offen ist'). No sibling tool competes for this action, so an agent can pick it out unambiguously.

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 context for when to reach for it (a note to accounting about an open receipt) and states the hard selection rule that exactly one of the two identifiers must be supplied. It does not explicitly route the agent to the search tools for obtaining those IDs in the description text—that routing lives only in the schema—so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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