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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond them: it states the form is returned refreshed, that null removes a value or resets an override, and that flags.ej_forenklat=null lets the default follow turnover (simplified accounts below 3 MSEK). Remaining gaps are that it never states prerequisites (e.g. a prepared bilaga) or the effect on the statutory submission.

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, and the inline labels (flags:, adjustments:, other:, account_overrides:, address:, nea:, n7:) give a usable scan structure. But it is one very dense run-on paragraph in compressed Swedish abbreviations with no line separation, making it slower to parse than its information content requires.

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 nine-parameter destructive statutory mutation with no output schema, the description covers the field semantics well but omits prerequisites, permissions, and the relationship to mark_ne_submitted or the prior prepare_bilaga step. It is workable, not complete.

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?

With schema coverage at only 11% (only orgnr documented), the description carries nearly the full burden and largely succeeds: it enumerates flags (verksamhetens_art, passiv, utanfor_ees, ej_forenklat, uppdragstagare), adjustments as whole kronor per box including the 'R20+'/'R20-' spouse keys, other as O1-O11, account_overrides as {konto: ruta}, address keys, and the nea and n7 sub-keys. Types and formats for the nested box fields remain underspecified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: saving NE-bilaga (enskild firma) data and returning the form refreshed. The resource name itself separates it from sibling annex tools such as set_ink4_inputs and set_arsbokslut_inputs, but no sibling is named explicitly to remove ambiguity.

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?

Useful operational instructions are present: 'Argument: orgnr, year och de delar som ändras' describes partial updates, and 'Gissa aldrig belopp som användaren ska lämna' gives a clear prohibition. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over read_ne_bilaga, prepare_bilaga or set_arsbokslut_inputs, and 'Scope statutory' is too terse to serve as guidance.

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