scobees_update_lernpfad

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses patch-style semantics (unspecified fields preserved), identifies in_bib as a publication switch (a meaningful side effect), and flags two operations that must happen elsewhere. It does not state permission requirements, whether publishing to the Bib is reversible, or 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 dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and the caveats (preserved fields, out-of-scope operations) following. Slightly telegraphic style but no filler.

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 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important gaps: partial-update behavior, the Bib publication side effect, and excluded operations. Missing pieces are secondary – return value, permission prerequisites, and the meaning of the solve_order values.

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 only 38%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it names all seven optional fields including the mapping of "Reihenfolge" to solve_order and "Titelbild" to cover_image_path, and clarifies in_bib's meaning. It leaves the solve_order enum values (none vs after_solving) and the id parameter's LI-ID format unexplained, so it is not fully compensating.

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 einen bestehenden Lernpfad") plus the scope qualifier "(Wurzel)", which separates it from scobees_update_gliederung and scobees_create_lernpfad. It then enumerates the exact editable fields, so an agent immediately knows what surface this tool touches.

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?

"Nicht angegebene Felder bleiben erhalten" tells the agent this is a partial update, and "Fach bleibt beim Administrator, Zuweisung an Lerngruppen in der Weboberfläche" explicitly excludes two operations the agent might otherwise attempt. No sibling is named by comparison, so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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