create_button

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Crée' indicates a write/mutation operation, the description lacks crucial behavioral information: what permissions are required, whether this is a one-time action or creates persistent interactive elements, what happens after button creation, or any rate limits or constraints. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after button creation, how the button functions, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. Given the complexity of creating interactive UI elements and the lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more contextual information.

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 description mentions creating a message with an interactive button, which implies the existence of message content and button configuration parameters. With 83% schema description coverage (5 of 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add specific parameter semantics beyond what's already documented in the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 ('Crée un message avec un bouton interactif' - Creates a message with an interactive button), specifying both the creation of a message and the interactive button component. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'create_interactive_quiz', 'create_poll', or 'create_menu', which also create interactive elements.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for creating interactive content (create_interactive_quiz, create_poll, create_menu), but the description offers no differentiation or context about when this specific button creation tool is appropriate.

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