noark5_create_journalpost

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that this creates a new journalpost and mentions the return value, which covers the basic mutation behavior. It does not address prerequisites, authentication, or consequences for the parent saksmappe, but the core side effect is stated.

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 one-sentence purpose, a clear Args section, and a return note. The long attribute list is justified because the schema provides no property details, though it makes the description lengthy.

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 three-parameter creation tool with an output schema, the description gives all necessary parameter semantics and states the return includes the created entity URL. It could add guidance about required credentials or confirming the parent saksmappe exists, but it is otherwise complete enough for correct 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%, but the description fully documents each parameter: saksmappe_url is the self-href URL of the parent, tittel is the title, and attributes is an optional JSON object with the complete list of accepted fields. This adds substantial meaning 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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Create a new journalpost (registry entry) under a saksmappe.' It specifies the parent context and distinguishes journalpost creation from generic registrering or mappe creation among the 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 makes the intended parent context clear ('under a saksmappe') and documents the required saksmappe_url, so an agent can infer when this tool applies. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as noark5_create_registrering or state when not to use it.

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