Buchungen einer Zahlung entfernen

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantive behavior: it always removes ALL lines of the transaction and never a single split line, leaves the transaction itself unchanged, and does nothing to locked (festgeschriebene) postings. It also warns that real-tenant data is deleted and instructs reading the records first for user confirmation.

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 routing, then behavioral constraints and the safety warning. Slightly repetitive in restating that all non-locked posting lines are removed in both sentence two and five, but every sentence still contributes actionable 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, alternatives, destructive scope, locked-posting limits, and a read-before-write safety instruction, leaving no gap an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 single parameter already documents lookup via bb_transactions_search and the string-vs-integer nuance, so the schema carries the burden. The description only references 'der genannten Zahlung' without adding syntax or format detail, matching the baseline 3.

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 ('Hebt die Bestätigung der Buchungen einer Zahlung auf und entfernt sie damit') and names the exact siblings it is not (bb_postings_unconfirm_for_receipt, bb_postings_unconfirm_free). An agent can distinguish it from every other unconfirm/cancel tool without opening a 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?

Explicitly gives the use case ('um eine falsche Zahlungsbuchung zurückzunehmen, solange sie nicht festgeschrieben ist') and routes to alternatives by trigger condition: receipt-based → unconfirm_for_receipt, free posting → unconfirm_free, locked postings → bb_postings_cancel. When-to-use and when-not are both covered.

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