noark5_create_arkivdel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return behavior ('Returns details of the created arkivdel including its URL') and clarifies that the attributes object is entirely optional, which is useful. It does not address authentication requirements, failure modes, idempotency, or side effects of duplicate creations, leaving the error/safety profile undisclosed but acceptable for a straightforward create operation.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded, followed by a compact Args section and a return-value note. The optional-field enumeration is long but earns its place given the bare schema titles. The structure is scannable, though slightly dense in the attributes line.

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 create operation that has an output schema, the description covers the creation target, parent relationship, required and optional inputs, and the return value. It omits error/edge-case behavior and authentication context, but the sibling set_credentials tool signals where auth is handled, and these gaps are minor for a straightforward creation 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 0%, so the description fully compensates: arkiv_url is explained as the parent fonds self-href, tittel as the new arkivdel's title, and attributes is not only marked optional but enriched with a complete enumeration of 13 accepted fields (beskrivelse, arkivdelstatus, dokumentmedium, etc.). An agent can construct a fully correct call from the description alone.

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 line states a specific action, 'Create a new arkivdel (series/partition) under a fonds,' naming a concrete resource type and its parent container. Within a large family of create_* siblings (create_mappe, create_arkiv, create_klasse), naming the exact Noark5 entity and its placement distinguishes this tool without needing to inspect the schema. The parenthetical English gloss '(series/partition)' further clarifies the domain term.

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 phrase 'under a fonds' and the required arkiv_url argument imply the prerequisite of an existing parent fonds and establish the creation context. However, the description never explicitly names alternatives, exclusions, or 'when not to use' conditions, such as which sibling handles top-level arkiv creation. Guidance remains inferred rather than stated.

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