consent_forms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it meets almost none of it: no read/write indication, no permission or scoping behavior, no pagination or rate-limit notes. The single prerequisite hint is already visible in the schema's required list.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the prerequisite is front-loaded in parentheses. It is not padded or redundant, though it is too thin to be exemplary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool has only two required parameters. Still, the definition never states the operation being performed, leaving the core question an agent must answer before calling it unresolved.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only names organizationalUnitId (and even then in a different casing than the schema's organizational_unit_id). child_id is never explained, and no parameter's meaning, format, or relationship is clarified beyond the schema.

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 names a resource ('Samtykkeskjemaer for et barn' / consent forms for a child) but supplies no verb, so it is ambiguous whether the tool lists, fetches, or creates consent forms. It is more informative than a tautology and roughly distinguishes the topic from siblings like absences or timetable, but the action is left to inference.

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 only guidance is the parenthetical note that organizationalUnitId is required, which merely restates a required field already declared in the schema. There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for related tasks.

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