Flyt til andet projekt

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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false already declared, the description usefully adds what changes and what does not: 'custody uændret, lejen skifter projekt fra i dag' (custody unchanged, rental switches project from today). That timing/state detail goes beyond the annotations, but auth/permission behavior and failure handling are not clarified; the trailing 'som lageransvarlig på lagerId' fragment is too cryptic to count as clear disclosure.

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 core action is front-loaded, but the sentence is a colon/semicolon chain and closes with an incomplete-looking fragment ('Egne emner; som lageransvarlig på lagerId alt på lageret') that reads as dangling rather than earning 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?

For a non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential effect (project switch from today, custody preserved) but leaves the warehouse-manager condition and 'egne emner' clause unexplained, and offers nothing on confirmation or response. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 75%, so the schema already documents koder, lagerId and projektId ('Mærker eller serienumre', 'Lager-id... se lager_me', 'Projektets id... se lager_projekter'). The description only loosely gestures at lagerId and 'egne emner' without adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opening clause 'Udlejet værktøj flyttes til et andet projekt' gives a specific verb (flyttes/move) and resource (udlejet værktøj/leased tool) plus a destination (et andet projekt), and 'uden om lageret' clarifies the scope. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like lager_aflever or lager_tjek_ud, so it lands below a 5.

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 vs when-not, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The 'uden om lageret' phrase implies a bypass path but never states the condition under which an agent should pick this tool over the other lager_* movement tools.

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