noark5_create_klasse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose that this is a creation operation and that the response contains created-class details including its URL. However, it does not mention side effects beyond creation, authorization requirements, behavior on invalid parent URLs, or how optional attributes affect the created entity.

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 content is compact and functional: one purpose sentence, a clear parameter list, and a return-value statement. It avoids filler while covering all parameters and the response, and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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 moderate-complexity creation tool with three parameters and an output schema signal, the description supplies enough to call it: parent context, title, optional fields, and return information. It could be more complete by covering failure modes or hierarchical restrictions, but it does not leave fundamental invocation questions unanswered.

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 fully compensate. It explains parent_url as a self-href URL and clarifies which parent types are valid, defines tittel, and enumerates the optional attribute fields. The main gap is that the schema types attributes as a string while the description says 'JSON object', which is slightly ambiguous about whether a JSON-encoded string is expected.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new klasse'), and pins down where the object belongs ('under a klassifikasjonssystem or another klasse'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools such as noark5_create_klassifikasjonssystem, noark5_create_mappe, and noark5_create_arkivdel.

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 usage context by specifying the valid parent types (klassifikasjonssystem or klasse), so an agent can infer when this tool applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the parent-type condition provides practical routing guidance among the many create_* siblings.

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