Kreditorenkonten im Stapel anlegen

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the response is partial-success with an 'errors' array naming each rejected entry, and critically there is no API endpoint to undo the write. This 'no-undo' warning is exactly the kind of risk context annotations (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) do not convey.

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-loaded with the core action, then use case, element shape, response semantics, and irreversibility in tight sentences. No wasted text; each sentence carries distinct, decision-relevant information.

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?

Covers write target ('echten Buchhaltungsdaten'), partial-success semantics, lack of undo, batch element shape, and intended scenario. Even though an output schema exists, the description adds the failure-mode context an agent needs to invoke this safely.

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 every field, the 1-50 item bounds, and the postingaccount_number behavior. The description only adds that items mirror bb_creditors_create minus email, which is a minor clarification rather than new syntax meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (mehrere Kreditorenkonten anlegen) with the batch scope made explicit ('in einem Aufruf'). It names the sibling bb_creditors_create and clarifies the difference (same fields, but without email), so an agent can distinguish the batch from the single-create tool without opening either schema.

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 use context ('Gedacht für die Übernahme einer Lieferantenliste') and implicitly routes single-record work to bb_creditors_create by referencing shared fields. It lacks an explicit when-not/alternative statement (e.g. 'use single create for one creditor'), so it stops just short of full guidance.

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