elster_ustva_confirm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the final action and return value (transmission ticket), but lacks details on error behavior, idempotency, or side effects. The state requirement adds some transparency.

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?

Two sentences, zero fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and required state, and the second adds the action and return value. Every word 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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core functionality and return value. It does not explain error conditions or idempotency, but given the tool's straightforward nature, it is largely complete. Minor gaps in parameter documentation reduce completeness slightly.

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 only parameter (sessionId) has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not mention it at all. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess the expected format or role of sessionId.

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 tool confirms submission of a UStVA session in a specific state (AWAITING_CONFIRM) and triggers the final 'Absenden' click. It identifies the specific resource and action, distinguishing it from sibling tools like elster_ustva_generate_xml or elster_ustva_start.

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?

The description explicitly states the required state (AWAITING_CONFIRM), implying when to use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context from sibling tools makes the usage clear.

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