noark5_create_saksmappe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses server auto-assignment behavior for saksaar, the optional nature of attributes, and that the response includes the created object's URL. It does not cover authorization, idempotency, or failure behavior, but the core mutating behavior 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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a structured Args/Returns layout. The field list is long but necessary because the schema provides no descriptions, so the density is justified.

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 4-parameter create tool with no annotations, the description covers all parameters, the required parent type, optional field semantics, and the response. It could additionally address error scenarios or explicitly route to sibling create tools, but it is sufficient 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%, and the description fully compensates: it explains parent_url, tittel, saksaar, and attributes, including the full list of optional fields and inherited Mappe fields. It also clarifies that saksaar=0/omitted triggers server auto-assignment and that attributes is a JSON object despite being typed 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new saksmappe (case file) under an arkivdel.' It identifies the entity type and the required parent, which separates it from sibling create_* tools even without naming them.

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?

Provides clear context: this tool is for creating a saksmappe and requires a parent arkivdel, with parent_url explicitly described. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives like noark5_create_mappe, but the usage context is clear.

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