Proposer un nouveau programme

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It informs that the proposal goes through human moderation before any publication and that automatic online posting does not occur. This is important for an agent to set expectations, though more detail on the moderation process or timing could be added.

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. It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with the key behavioral note about moderation. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose and a key behavior (moderation). However, it lacks information about what the agent should expect as a return value (e.g., confirmation, ID) or what happens after successful suggestion. This leaves a slight gap in completeness.

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?

All three parameters (name, url, category) are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: to propose a sponsorship program not already in the directory. The verb 'Propose' and resource 'programme de parrainage absent de l'annuaire' are specific. Siblings like get_program, search_blog, and search_programs are clearly distinct (retrieval/search vs. suggesting new).

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 implies the tool is for suggesting a program that is absent from the directory, giving clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or suggest alternatives, though the sibling tools are quite different in nature.

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