scobees_create_aufgabe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that content is supplied either as Markdown with specific quiz block types or as a finished serlo_json, and that attachments are added afterwards via another tool. It says nothing about permissions, validation failures, or what happens when both content fields are passed.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and placement, then the art taxonomy, then the content format, then the follow-up call. No filler; only minor cost is that the art enumeration is compressed into a run-on list.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two decisions that matter most (which art, which content format) and implicitly clarifies that `parent_id` is the id of a Gliederung/Wahlpflicht/Lernpfad. The interaction between differenzierungen, wahlaufgabe and art is left to the schema, which is a minor gap.

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 64%, and the description adds real value beyond it by defining each `art` enum value (info/selbstkontrolle/abgabe_*) and by enumerating the quiz block names accepted in `arbeitsblatt_markdown`, plus the serlo_json alternative. It leaves `links`, `wahlaufgabe`, `interne_notiz` and `estimated_time` entirely to the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Legt eine Aufgabe ... an") and names the three container types it can be created in (Gliederung/Wahlpflicht/Lernpfad), which cleanly separates it from siblings like scobees_create_gliederung or scobees_create_lernpfad. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives the placement contexts and a concrete follow-up step ("Dateien danach mit scobees_upload_material anhängen"), so the agent knows the workflow. It stops short of saying when to prefer scobees_update_aufgabe or scobees_markdown_vorschau instead, so no explicit exclusions.

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