Freie Buchung entfernen

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value: it says data is removed from the live BuchhaltungsButler tenant, that the API rejects receipt/transaction postings with error_code 7, and instructs the agent to read the affected records and present them to the user first. It does not cover permissions or how a repeated call behaves beyond the finalization note, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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 action, then routing, then identifier semantics, then failure modes. Sentences are long and dense but each carries distinct information; a small amount of redundancy around the sibling names costs it the top score.

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 exists, so return values need no explanation. Given a single-parameter destructive mutation, the description covers purpose, selection criteria, identifier semantics, error behavior, and the pre-read safety workflow — everything 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it explains that the parameter addresses the posting itself rather than a receipt number, and that supplying a receipt or transaction posting id yields error_code 7. This disambiguates the identifier beyond the schema's own 'how to find it' text.

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 precise verb and resource: lifting the confirmation of a single free booking, which removes it. It explicitly separates itself from the sibling variants (bb_postings_unconfirm_for_receipt, bb_postings_unconfirm_for_transaction) and from bb_postings_cancel, so an agent can distinguish it 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 when-to-use condition (undo a wrong free booking that is not yet finalized), names the two alternative tools with the conditions that select them, and states the fallback (finalized booking -> bb_postings_cancel). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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