Bygg en leveranse av atomer

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the tool returns the raw markdown source and does not itself finalize the deliverable, provenance records which version and level were used, and the key parameter makes a re-run replace the previous version. That last point sits in mild tension with idempotentHint=false, though versioned replacement on a stable key is not a true contradiction. No permissions or error behavior is described.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the when-to-use triggers, then level rules, then the follow-up workflow. Dense but nearly every sentence carries actionable information; only the house-style/HTML-PDF tail is slightly tangential to invoking the tool correctly.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by stating exactly what comes back (the markdown source) and what the agent must do next (rewrite and save via tua_save with the same key). For a 9-parameter mutation tool this is close to complete, though failure modes and the exact provenance artifact remain unspecified.

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 89%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: level defaults to M with L only on request, context is capped at the level it was given, and vault-tagged atoms are forced to S. It also clarifies that ids are order-sensitive and that project defaults to the first source atom's project.

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: compose several atoms into one deliverable in markdown and persist it as a new atom with provenance back to sources. The scope, output format and the persisted artifact are all named, making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like tua_get or tua_save.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrases («lag et notat/dokument/sammendrag av disse», «sett sammen X, Y og Z»), specifies the default level (M) and the exception (L only on explicit request), and explains the vault-atom rule (included only as S). It also draws an explicit boundary with the sibling tua_save by saying the write-back happens in a separate call.

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