Freie Buchungen anlegen

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true) the description discloses the non-transactional batch semantics ('success auf oberster Ebene sagt nichts über die einzelnen Einträge', failed entries named in the errors array), the one-line-per-entry rule, and the permanent-visibility consequence of a reversal. This is substantive behavioral context the annotations do not convey, and it does not contradict them.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and most sentences carry distinct operational information (use case, alternative, transactional caveat, cancel path). It is somewhat dense and a couple of clauses restate schema-level facts, but nothing is idle filler.

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 a batch mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly: inputs are one-per-line, the batch is not atomic, and the failure signal lives in the response's errors array. Return-value detail is rightly left to the output schema.

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 the single free_postings array and its item fields in depth. The description's parameter-adjacent claims (one line per entry, max 50 entries) largely restate what the schema already declares, so it adds only marginal meaning over the structured data — the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific verb and resource ('legt ... mehrere freie Buchungen in einem Aufruf an') and scopes them precisely as 'vollständige Buchungssätze ohne Beleg- und Zahlungsbezug'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the single-item sibling bb_postings_create_free, so an agent can route 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?

It gives an explicit use condition ('wenn viele Umbuchungen auf einmal anfallen, etwa Abgrenzungen zum Jahreswechsel') and names the alternative for the single case (bb_postings_create_free). It also routes the reversal case to bb_postings_cancel, leaving little to inference.

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