Tag værktøj med ud

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that: the overtag: true requirement when the item currently sits with a colleague, and the accepted retur values. It still says nothing about failure modes or what happens to the record on success.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action and the key conditional (overtag) come first. Slightly terse/telegraphic rather than tightly organized, but nothing is wasted.

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 and four parameters, the description covers the action, the overtag conditional, and the retur enumeration, which is most of what is needed. It still omits prerequisites (e.g. which lager/project access is required) and any statement about the result, leaving gaps for a mutating tool.

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 only 50% (lagerId and projektId are annotated in-schema), but the description compensates by documenting the two undocumented concerns: overtag semantics per line and the enumerated values for retur, which the schema leaves as a bare string. Only linjer/kode is left implicit.

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 concrete action and target ("Udlevering til et projekt"), so an agent knows this checks stock out to a project rather than returning it. The title "Tag værktøj med ud" reinforces the checkout semantics, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the close sibling lager_aflever.

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?

No explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named. The reader must infer from "Udlevering til et projekt" that this is the checkout path and lager_aflever is the return path.

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