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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), and the description is consistent with them. It adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: passing null in adjustments removes a row, amounts are in whole kronor, and the form is returned after saving. It still leaves unclear whether unmentioned sections are preserved or overwritten, and requires no mention of 'Scope statutory' prerequisites.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then the description is organized as compact per-parameter fragments, which is dense and efficient. The telegraphic colon-delimited style and the lone English phrase 'Scope statutory' in an otherwise Swedish text make it slightly harder to parse, but no sentence is padding.

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 destructive, idempotent six-parameter form-mutation with no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious parameters and the re-render return behavior reasonably well. It omits prerequisites and workflow ordering (e.g., relation to mark_ink4_submitted), whether nested object keys are validated, and what happens to fields not supplied.

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 17%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates the flags keys (uppdragstagare, revision, ovriga_upplysningar), explains adjustments as whole-kronor amounts per INK4S row with the specific row ranges 4.3a-4.11b and 4.14-4.16 and null-to-remove semantics, and gives the partners shape {plats: {employer_fee_deduction}} and address fields (postnr, postort). Only 'year' is left unexplained, preventing a 5.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Sparar uppgifter till INK4' (saves data to the INK4 form) and adds that it 'returnerar blanketten på nytt' (re-renders the form), which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like read_ink4 and from the separate submission step mark_ink4_submitted. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus read_ink4, set_partners, or mark_ink4_submitted, nor any prerequisite such as whether the fiscal year must be locked or a year-end step completed first. The trailing 'Argument: orgnr, year och de delar som ändras' describes partial-update scope rather than usage conditions.

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