Tools Capability-Bundles zuordnen

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds that assignment is based on metadata but does not clarify whether the result is persisted or just returned, leaving mild ambiguity. It does not contradict 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the action and subject. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

While the schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety, the description does not mention what the tool returns (no output schema) or how the optional parameters like profileName or mcpRoot alter the assignment. For a tool with 6 optional parameters, a bit more context about the outcome would improve completeness, but the core functionality is still understandable.

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?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to compensate; a 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?

The description clearly states the action ('ordnet zu' / assigns) and the resource (MCP tools to capability bundles). It is specific enough to distinguish from 'suggest_bundles' by using 'assign' rather than 'suggest', though it doesn't explicitly address the difference.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'suggest_bundles' or 'list_bundles'. The description solely states the function without context, exclusions, or alternatives.

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