noark5_create_klassifikasjonssystem

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation creates a new entity and that the response includes details and a URL, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, validation, or failure behavior beyond that.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into concise Args and Returns sections. The optional field list is informative and does not add 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?

For a straightforward creation tool, the description covers all parameters and return expectations. It could be more complete with usage guidance and behavioral caveats, but an agent has enough to correctly invoke this tool given a parent arkivdel URL.

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?

The schema itself has zero descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explaines arkivdel_url, tittel, and attributes, and lists all optional attribute fields. The only weakness is calling attributes a 'JSON object' while the schema types it as a 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 clearly states the action ('Create a new klassifikasjonssystem') and the placement ('under an arkivdel'), with a parenthetical translation. This distinguishes it from related sibling create tools by naming a distinct resource and its hierarchical parent.

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 context by requiring the parent arkivdel URL and stating the object is created under an arkivdel. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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