Aflevér værktøj

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

Annotations declare the safety profile only negatively (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), so the description adds real value: it discloses that the response tells the caller where the item should be placed, and imposes a conditional requirement ('Skadet kræver en note'). It does not cover bulk/partial-failure behavior or whether re-submitting the same lines is safe.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence carries a distinct piece of information (return semantics, response behavior, damaged-item rule). No filler.

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 usefully signals what the response contains, and it covers the damaged-item validation path. It stops short of describing multi-line handling, partial success, or what happens if an item is not in the warehouse.

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 50% and the nested linjer fields (kode, note, skadet) carry no descriptions, but the description compensates by explaining the conditional relationship between skadet and note — a rule the schema alone would not convey. The lagerId parameter is documented in the schema itself, so no duplication is needed.

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+resource: return goods to the warehouse ('Retur til lageret'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not name or contrast with its obvious counterpart lager_tjek_ud, so an agent must infer the inverse relationship rather than being told it.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as lager_tjek_ud, lager_flyt_projekt, or lager_forbrug. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Retur til lageret'.

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