Kostenstelle löschen

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: exactly what is removed (the cost center plus its Bezeichnung), that it deletes from the real/production tenant, and that the effect on referencing postings is undocumented and the assignment may be lost. It also prescribes reading affected records and presenting them to the user first.

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?

It is somewhat long, but every sentence carries distinct information (purpose, target scenario, undeclared side effect, impact-check tool, production scope, recommended pre-read) and the core action is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present and only one fully-documented parameter, the description still covers behavior, side effects, production scope, and a pre-deletion workflow. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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% — the single 'code' parameter is fully documented with an example and a lookup hint (bb_cost_locations_search). The description only restates that deletion happens 'über ihren code', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource in German ('Löscht eine Kostenstelle in BuchhaltungsButler über ihren code') and adds the intent behind the operation. An agent can immediately distinguish this from sibling operations like bb_cost_locations_update, _create or _search.

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 states a clear usage context ('Gedacht für eine versehentlich angelegte oder nicht mehr benutzte Kostenstelle') and routes the agent to bb_postings_search to inspect affected postings before acting. It does not spell out an explicit 'do not use when' exclusion, but the guidance is concrete.

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