Server has 6 tools with complete input schemas and descriptions, but quality is inconsistent. Tool names follow verb_noun convention (create_agent_identity, get_identity, authorize_action, verify_authorization, list_identities, revoke_identity). Descriptions are present but vary in clarity, some are in German, mixing languages. Parameter descriptions exist but lack detail on constraints, formats, and valid ranges. No output schemas documented. Error handling is absent from tool definitions. Security-critical tools (revoke_identity, authorize_action) lack confirmation patterns or permission gates. Composition is reasonable, tools are single-purpose, but missing idempotency guarantees and recovery guidance.

• Document output schemas for all 6 tools. Example for create_agent_identity: {agent_id: string, name: string, owner: string, capabilities: string[], trust_score: number, status: string, created_at: string}. This enables LLMs to chain calls (e.g., pass agent_id to authorize_action).
• Add confirmation/dry-run pattern to revoke_identity. Introduce a 'confirm' boolean parameter (default false) or a separate 'preview_revoke_identity' tool that returns what would be revoked without executing.
• Constrain parameters with enums and ranges. For authorize_action: scope enum ["read-only", "full-access", "limited"], action enum ["read_emails", "make_purchase", ...], expires_hours integer min=1 max=8760 (1 year).
• Add error recovery guidance to descriptions. Example: 'If agent_id not found, call list_identities(owner=...) to discover valid IDs.' This guides LLM self-correction.
• Standardize descriptions to English only. Translate German descriptions to English for consistency and broader LLM compatibility. Keep descriptions 50 - 200 characters for optimal LLM parsing.