Build a CERIF entity fragment

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that an id is automatically generated, that language-dependent elements receive cfLangCode/cfTrans attributes, and that the tool handles scalar child elements. It doesn't mention the return format or side effects, but for a builder this is reasonable. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 three sentences long and efficient. The first sentence states purpose, the second explains the values parameter with examples, and the third points to the sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 that there is no output schema and the tool has nested object parameters, the description explains the fragment-building concept and the role of build_document. It doesn't explicitly state the return type (e.g., an XML string), which is a minor gap, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides examples of value names (cfFamilyNames, cfBirthdate) and mentions language handling, but these largely mirror the schema's own examples. It doesn't add significant new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 'Builds a single top-level CERIF 1.6 entity element' which is a specific verb and resource, and it gives concrete examples (<cfPers>, <cfOrgUnit>, <cfResPubl>). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming build_document as the tool for wrapping fragments into a full document.

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 explicitly states 'Use `build_document` to wrap fragments into a valid CERIF document,' which tells the agent when to choose an alternative. It also explains the intended usage pattern by indicating that build_entity creates a fragment and build_document composes the final document.

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