noark5_create_registrering

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a create operation, documents accepted optional fields, and states that the created registrering's details and URL are returned. It does not disclose authentication needs, idempotency, or error behavior, but the essential side effect is clear.

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-sentence purpose, a compact Args section, and a short return note. The optional attribute list is somewhat long but earns its place because the schema provides no such detail; there is no filler or tautology.

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?

It is callable: all required inputs are explained, optional fields are listed, and the return is described. However, for a write tool with no annotations, it lacks explicit alternative routing (generic registrering vs journalpost/arkivnotat) and prerequisite hints such as credentials or how to obtain mappe_url. The presence of an output schema partially compensates for return-value detail.

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 provides only names and types with zero descriptions, so the description adds substantial meaning: mappe_url is identified as the parent's self-href, and attributes is expanded with a full list of accepted optional keys. The only weakness is calling attributes a JSON object while the schema types it as a string, which leaves some passing-format ambiguity.

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?

States the exact operation (create) and resource (Noark5 registrering) plus the required parent container (mappe). The entity name and parent context distinguish it from sibling tools such as create_mappe and create_journalpost at the resource level.

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 mappe_url parameter and 'under a mappe' phrase imply this is for adding a registration to an existing mappe. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over create_journalpost, create_arkivnotat, or other create-* siblings, so the selection criteria are left to inference.

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