noark5_create_secondary_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It clearly reveals this is a mutating operation ('Create'), explains the underlying modelling, and states that details of the created entity are returned. It could additionally cover prerequisites or failure behavior, but the core behavioral outcome is transparent.

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 gives a compact rule for using it, a useful mapping of common types, and a clean Args list. Every sentence contributes; the examples replace what would otherwise be vague parameter explanations.

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 four-parameter creation tool with an output schema, the description covers all required inputs, gives example values, explains the parent relationship, and notes the return value. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly without needing additional documentation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines parent_url as 'the self-href URL', lists common entity types with their field names, and maps each argument to a meaningful role. This goes well beyond the bare schema titles and gives the agent enough to construct valid calls.

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 clear action ('Create a secondary ... entity under a parent') and gives concrete examples ('forfatter, noekkelord'). It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from noark5_update_entity, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this instead of noark5_update_entity to add them,' providing direct guidance on when this tool is the right choice. The cardinality explanation ([0..*]/[1..*]) also gives a clear condition for when secondary entities are needed.

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