Beleg wiederherstellen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that this writes to real accounting data, that it toggles a deletion flag rather than restoring a file or creating a receipt, and that it is reversible via bb_receipts_delete. It does not address idempotency or error behavior, but adds meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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 purpose, followed by usage context, disambiguation, and reversibility. Four tight clauses with no filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter mutation with an output schema and annotations already carrying the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it does, how to find the target, what it does not do, and how to undo it. No critical agent-facing gap remains.

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% and the single parameter's schema description already explains the tenant-scoped ID, the string/integer distinction, and where to find the value. The tool description adds no further parameter format or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: it reverses the deletion mark of a receipt in BuchhaltungsButler. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming bb_receipts_search for finding deleted receipts, bb_receipts_delete for undoing, and explicitly denying that it creates a receipt or restores a file.

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 typical use case (accidentally marked as deleted), tells how to locate the target receipt via bb_receipts_search with deleted true, explains what it does not do (create or restore files), and names the alternative action bb_receipts_delete for reversal. No inference is needed.

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