noark5_create_dokumentbeskrivelse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states that a new dokumentbeskrivelse will be created and that details, including the URL, will be returned. It does not cover error cases or idempotency, but for a straightforward create operation this is adequate.

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 purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by a compact and organized Args section. Every line adds useful information about the parameters or return value, with no 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?

An output schema exists, so exhaustive return-value documentation is not required. The description covers the parent-child relationship, required arguments, optional fields, and return URL. It could be improved by giving an example of the attributes JSON or noting the string serialization, but it is complete enough for invocation.

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. It explains registrering_url, tittel, and attributes, and lists all optional attribute fields. The only notable gap is that attributes is schema-typed as string but described as a 'JSON object' without clarifying it should be passed as a JSON string.

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, 'Create', and names the exact resource, 'dokumentbeskrivelse (document description)', plus its parent context, 'under a registrering'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the many other create_* siblings.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is used: creating a document description under a specific registrering, and it identifies the required parent URL. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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