noark5_create_arkiv

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states the side effect (creating a fonds) and mentions that details and URL are returned, but it does not disclose required credentials, failure behavior, or duplicate-handling behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by a compact parameter list and a short return note. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant 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?

For a two-parameter create tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it defines all parameters, the optional attribute fields, and the return behavior. It only omits an explicit prerequisite note about calling noark5_set_credentials first, which is a minor gap given the sibling tools.

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%, and the description fully compensates. It explains that 'tittel' is the title of the fonds and defines 'attributes' as an optional JSON object while enumerating every supported optional field. An agent can construct a correct call without needing additional documentation.

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 and resource: 'Create a new top-level archive (fonds).' The phrase 'top-level' clearly distinguishes this from related sibling tools like noark5_create_arkivdel, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when creating a new top-level fonds. It implicitly rules out sub-archive creation, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state a when-not condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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