noark5_create_arkivnotat

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

As no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states it creates a resource and returns details including its URL. However, it does not disclose required permissions, potential side effects, error behavior, or what happens if the parent saksmappe does not exist. This is a moderate gap for a mutation tool.

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 description is well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, then an Arguments section, then a return statement. It is longer than necessary because of the detailed attribute list, but that detail is valuable given the schema's lack of descriptions. No fluff.

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?

Given the input schema and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all parameters and the return value with sufficient detail. It does not mention authentication setup or failure scenarios, but for a create call within an established Noark5 context this is acceptable. Minor gap: no guidance on whether attributes must be JSON-escaped or how the JSON string is parsed.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter in the Args section. It specifies that saksmappe_url is the self-href URL of the parent, tittel is the title, and attributes is an optional JSON object enumerating the allowed fields. This goes well beyond the bare 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 clearly states the specific operation: 'Create a new arkivnotat (record note) under a saksmappe.' This gives a verb, a resource type, and the parent context. It is easily distinguished from sibling create tools, which target different resource types.

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 implies usage by specifying the parent resource type 'saksmappe' and the record-note nature. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives like noark5_create_registrering or noark5_create_journalpost, nor does it mention prerequisites such as setting credentials first.

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