enregistrer_fonction_bouton

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'enregistre' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: required permissions, whether this overwrites existing functions, error conditions, side effects, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in transparency.

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 communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the essential information. Every element of the description earns its place by specifying the action, target, and key constraint (button must exist).

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, permissions required, or behavioral consequences. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide the contextual information needed for safe and effective use of this write operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't clarify parameter relationships, constraints, or usage patterns. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('enregistre' - registers/saves) and the target resource ('une fonction personnalisée pour un bouton existant' - a custom function for an existing button). It specifies the button is identified by ID, which distinguishes it from creating new buttons. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'attacher_fonction_bouton_embed' or 'supprimer_fonction_bouton'.

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 minimal guidance - it mentions the button must exist and be identified by ID. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'attacher_fonction_bouton_embed' (which appears similar but for embed buttons) or 'supprimer_fonction_bouton' (for deletion). No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools are provided.

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