pvsyst_create_site

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does partially deliver: it discloses required PVsyst version (8.1+), the two filesystem locations written to, and the external-service network lookup that may occur. It omits overwrite/collision behavior for an existing .sit, permission or license prerequisites, and whether the operation is reversible — significant gaps for a file-creating mutation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the artifact path, and the conditional network behavior is placed last where it belongs. The bracketed category tag and 'CLI create-site' phrasing add minor noise but no real bloat.

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 12-parameter, 5-required mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition covers the environment and side effects but leaves the argument contract essentially undocumented. An agent cannot reliably populate weather_csv_name, sit_name vs site_name, or the optional locale fields from this description alone.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It explains only the omission behavior of altitude, timezone and country; it says nothing about albedo, region, source, log_level, weather_csv_name format, or the critical and confusing distinction between the required site_name and sit_name.

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 SIT via CLI create-site) and names the exact output location (workspace/Sites, PVsyst 8.1+), plus the side effect of staging a weather CSV in workspace/Meteo. It's clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the weather/data siblings such as pvsyst_acquire_weather or pvsyst_build_monthly_weather that also populate workspace/Meteo.

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?

Usage is implied (create a site when it does not yet exist) and one useful conditional is given: omitting altitude/timezone/country triggers a possible external lookup. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over resolving a location or acquiring weather first, nor any warning about creating a site that already exists.

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