Saves the open ELSTER form as a draft and closes it, so entered data is preserved before an idle session timeout.
Saves the open form as a draft ("Speichern und Formular verlassen") and closes it. Reopen with elster_form_open. The server session times out after ~30 min idle and unsaved work is then only in ELSTER's auto-recovery — save before long pauses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the form is saved as a draft, that it closes the form, and that the server session times out after ~30 minutes idle with unsaved work left only in ELSTER's auto-recovery. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare mutation statement.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the reopen path and the time-sensitive warning. Every sentence adds distinct value, and nothing is repeated or wasted.
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 zero-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential behavior: what it does, how to reopen, and the session timeout risk. It does not mention return value or error handling, but those are secondary for a simple save-and-close operation.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4; the empty schema is fully consistent with the description.
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 (saves) and resource (open form as a draft) and notes that it closes the form. It also distinguishes the follow-up action by naming elster_form_open for reopening, so an agent can separate it from open/new tools.
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?
Provides clear context: use it to save the open form before long pauses, and reopen with elster_form_open. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like elster_form_new, but the intended usage is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.