create_cost_location

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

No annotations are provided, so per the rubric the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it adds nothing beyond a restatement of the tool name. For a write operation, there is no disclosure of side effects, duplicate-handling behavior, authentication requirements, or what happens on failure. The description neither contradicts annotations nor enriches the agent's mental model in any meaningful way.

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?

A single, front-loaded, grammatical sentence with zero wasted words. 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 create operation with no output schema and a well-documented parameter schema, the minimal description is mostly adequate. However, it misses the opportunity to mention return behavior, error semantics, or idempotency. The description is adequate for a task of this complexity but provides nothing beyond the bare minimum — a solid mid-tier performance.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema does a decent job on its own: `api_key` clearly explains the env-var fallback (BUCHHALTUNGSBUTLER_API_KEY), and `name`/`number` are minimally described. The `number` parameter would benefit from format/constraint details, but that's a schema gap, not a description failure.

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?

"Erstellt eine neue Kostenstelle." is a clear, specific verb+resource formulation that unambiguously states a create-mutation on a cost center entity. It distinguishes well from its only same-resource sibling `list_cost_locations`, which is clearly a different operation type. A point is lost because the description essentially restates the tool's name in German without adding any scope, constraints, or distinguishing detail.

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 provides no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus any alternative, nor any preconditions or context. There is no mention of how this relates to `list_cost_locations` or when a user might need to verify an api_key first. No misleading information, but effectively zero actionable guidance beyond what the tool name implies.

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