scobees_create_lernpfad

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful post-conditions: the path appears in the school's own library as published but stays INACTIVE until a teacher assigns it to a Lerngruppe in the web UI. That is exactly the kind of side effect an agent cannot infer elsewhere. Remaining gaps are authorization requirements and what the call returns.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: what is created, what to do next, and what state it lands in. The core action is front-loaded in the first clause.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the follow-up workflow and the resulting lifecycle state well. It slightly under-delivers on prerequisites (permissions) and on what the caller gets back, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 86%, so the schema already documents name, subject_id (with the source tool), jahrgaenge, description, solve_order, stichwoerter and cover_image_path. The description only adds the loose hint that the path lives 'in einem Fach', implying subject_id, and adds no semantics 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 and resource ('Legt einen neuen Lernpfad ... an') and pins the level by calling it the root ('Wurzel') in a subject, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that add Gliederungen and Aufgaben underneath. An agent can tell exactly what this creates 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?

Provides explicit workflow ordering: create the root here, then add Gliederungen and Aufgaben 'mit den anderen Werkzeugen', which routes the agent to the sibling tools. It does not explicitly contrast against update_lernpfad or state prerequisites beyond the implicit need for a subject_id, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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