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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one important behavioral fact: 'bestehende Eintraege bleiben erhalten' (existing entries remain). However, it omits other potential side effects, such as whether the new field is applied to all existing entries or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that wastes no words. It front-loads the core action and resource, and adds a parenthetical safety note without bloating the text.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and conditional param requirements (e.g., max only for rating, options only for select), the description is too minimal to provide full context. It does not explain the conditional behavior, return format, or how existing entries are affected beyond preservation.

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 only 33%, with only 'max' and 'options' having descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, leaving key parameters like 'label', 'type', 'required', and 'tracker_id' unexplained. Since the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, the semantic burden is unmet.

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?

The description 'Fuegt einem bestehenden Tracker ein neues Feld hinzu' clearly states the action (adding), the resource (existing tracker), and the object (new field). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_column by explicitly targeting trackers.

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 implies a clear use case: when adding a field to an existing tracker. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know when to select this tool over siblings like add_entry or add_column.

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