scobees_update_aufgabe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses partial-update semantics and warns that arbeitsblatt_markdown/serlo_json completely replace the worksheet, implying destructive overwrite. It still omits permissions, validation behavior for serlo_json, and whether array fields like links/differenzierungen replace or merge.

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 compact sentences with no waste. The core mutation rule is front-loaded, followed immediately by the destructive-replacement warning and prerequisite.

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 mutation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral risk (worksheet replacement) and read-before-write guidance. However, it leaves most parameter semantics undocumented, which is a meaningful gap for an update tool with no schema descriptions.

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 0% and there are 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains the replacement behavior of arbeitsblatt_markdown and serlo_json and the general partial-update rule; it says nothing about id, the art enum values, links structure, differenzierungen, estimated_time, or interne_notiz.

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 ('Ändert eine bestehende Aufgabe'), clearly identifying an update operation on an existing task. It does not explicitly contrast with scobees_create_aufgabe, but the update semantics are clear enough to distinguish from create/get siblings.

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?

Explicitly says only provided fields are changed and names scobees_get_aufgabe as a prerequisite before replacing arbeitsblatt_markdown/serlo_json. It gives clear operational guidance, though it does not state when not to use this tool versus create or other update tools.

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