submit_amelding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only says 'Submit' and the legal requirement, but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, idempotency, possible validation errors, or what happens after submission. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and target. The second sentence provides useful legal/periodicity context without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool is a submission action with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not state what the response contains, how to check submission status, or whether prior validation is needed. Sibling tools like get_amelding_status exist but are not referenced, leaving the agent without a complete workflow picture.

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 100% with a single 'amelding' parameter described as 'A-melding payload (see AMeldingRequest type).' The description adds the clarifying phrase 'wage and personnel report,' which provides some domain context, but it does not add structural details beyond what the schema already references.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Submit an A-melding (wage and personnel report) to Skatteetaten.' This clearly identifies the tool's action and target, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_tredjepartsopplysninger and the various get_/validate_ tools.

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 states when this tool is relevant: 'Required for all employers monthly.' This provides clear context for use, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, such as validating first with validate_skattemelding or checking status via get_amelding_status.

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