Sachkonto überschreiben

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds crucial context beyond them: existing bookings continue to reference the account and remain unchanged, the API does not return prior values, and the change is irreversible without a prior read. This goes well past the annotation set.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then flows through scope, prerequisite, and irreversibility warning. Every sentence carries distinct information, and the ordering is efficient for an agent scanning for pre-flight steps.

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?

Despite a live-tenant mutation with no rollback and an output schema that only returns the new state, the description covers the missing pieces: read-first requirement, referential behavior of existing postings, and irreversibility. Nothing an agent needs to call 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%, so both parameters are already documented with examples ("Softwarelizenzen Cloud 19% USt", "4931"). The description reinforces the immutability of postingaccount_number, but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks, 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 states a precise verb+resource in German ("Überschreibt die Bezeichnung eines Sachkontos") and immediately scopes exactly what changes versus what stays fixed (Nummer, Vorlagekonto, Steuerbehandlung). This lets an agent distinguish it from bb_postingaccounts_create and bb_postingaccounts_search without opening any 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?

It explicitly names the prerequisite workflow ("Den alten Namen vorher mit bb_postingaccounts_search lesen") and states the tool is intended for a corrected account label, effectively excluding general editing. The condition that selects the read sibling is spelled out.

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