vergessen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it states the soft-delete semantics (hidden from default recall view), the recovery path (mit_veraltet=True), that nothing is destroyed, and that grund surfaces in later displays. It omits permissions/auth requirements and behavior on invalid ids, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 effect, then the visibility/recovery consequence, then a tidy Args block. Every line does work; there is minor redundancy between "without a replacement" and "Nothing is deleted," though the latter usefully reinforces soft-delete.

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 not be described, and the description covers the essential mutation semantics (non-destructive, recoverable, reason visibility). It stops short of mentioning idempotency, error behavior, or permission needs for a mutation tool that has no annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does: ids is documented as one-or-more with the concrete format "12,34", and grund is explained as the reason string that appears in the outdated-entry display. Both parameters gain meaning beyond the raw schema.

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The description gives a specific verb and effect — "Marks entries as outdated, without a replacement" — and immediately scopes it against the default recall view, so an agent can distinguish this soft-archive operation from sibling tools like recall or remember. The only gap is that it doesn't explicitly name which sibling to prefer when a replacement exists.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: marking as outdated is for entries with no replacement. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives among pruefe, verdichten, or einordnen for cases where a replacement or merge is appropriate.

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