add_application

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds only the target domain (case file) but no behavioral context such as auto-fill behavior from reference_number, the Vermittlungsvorschlag reporting obligation, or whether duplicate entries are prevented. Little beyond the annotations is disclosed.

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, tight sentence with the verb front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a short action tool.

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 explained. But for a 13-parameter, zero-required tool the description provides no orientation about which parameters matter or how the two use cases (application vs. Vermittlungsvorschlag) drive different fields, leaving gaps despite annotation coverage.

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 62%, so the schema documents most parameters itself (source, status defaults, apply_by, reference_number lookups). The description names Bewerbung and Vermittlungsvorschlag, loosely mapping to the source enum, but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Record) and resource (application/Vermittlungsvorschlag in the case file), and even clarifies the domain meaning of the German terms. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like update_application or list_applications, so an agent must infer that this is the creation entry point.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance: it does not say to use this for new entries only, nor point to update_application for edits or list_applications for reading. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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