create_supplier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds one useful behavioral constraint (comment must be GLPI-compatible HTML, never Markdown), but says nothing about permissions, what happens on duplicate names, what the response contains, or side effects of creating a supplier.

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?

Concise and front-loaded: the purpose sentence precedes three terse field bullets with no wasted words. The structure is efficient, though the bullets only cover a fraction of the actual parameters.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete: ten parameters are unexplained and there is no account of authorization, validation, or result behavior. The HTML/Markdown constraint is helpful but isolated.

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%, so the description must compensate, yet it documents only 3 of 13 parameters (name, supplier_type_id, comment). The HTML-not-Markdown note and the 'only required field' marker add real value, but the other 10 fields (fax, town, email, state, address, country, website, postcode, is_active, phonenumber) are undocumented in both schema and description.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Crée un fournisseur'), which clearly identifies the create operation and implicitly distinguishes it from update_supplier, delete_supplier and list_suppliers. It does not, however, explicitly name or route away from those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites for creation, and no mention of the sibling tools it competes with. Only the field list is provided, which is parameter documentation rather than usage guidance.

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