Buchungen zu Zahlungen anlegen

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

Annotations are limited to readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false / idempotentHint=false / openWorldHint=true, and the description adds substantial non-redundant behavior: the batch is NOT transactional, top-level success does not imply per-entry success, failures appear in an errors array, the created postings are not returned, writes hit real client data, and confirmed postings cannot be deleted but only cancelled with a permanently visible storno.

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?

Five sentences, each carrying distinct information (scope, alternative, non-transactionality, verification path, write semantics, storno permanence), with the batch-vs-single distinction front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

An output schema and full annotation set exist, yet the description still supplies the things annotations cannot express: partial-failure semantics, where failures surface, and irreversible-confirmation behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call this mutation 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% and the schema itself is unusually thorough (VAT enum semantics, amount pattern, account/receipt lookup pointers). The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema already carries the load; there is no gap for the description to compensate for.

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 and resource (anlegen von Buchungssätzen zu mehreren vorhandenen Zahlungen) and explicitly names the single-payment sibling bb_postings_create_for_transaction that it is not. An agent can distinguish it from the batch of free postings and the single-transaction variant 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?

Gives an explicit selection rule: use this when an entire bank statement is to be posted, otherwise use bb_postings_create_for_transaction for one payment. It also routes follow-up actions (bb_postings_search to verify, bb_postings_cancel to reverse), covering when-to-use and what to do next.

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