suivi_creer_modele

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait — that an existing file will not be overwritten (an error/refusal rather than silent destruction) — which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about permissions, whether parent directories are created, or what the tool returns (e.g. the created path).

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what is created and where, the second adds the no-overwrite constraint. Nothing is redundant, though the column enumeration is long enough to slightly dilute the core action.

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 simple one-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the artifact and one safety behavior. It still omits the parameter's path semantics and the return value (does it return the file path?), which an agent calling it blind would need.

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% for the single required parameter 'fichier'. The phrase 'à l'emplacement indiqué' only weakly suggests the parameter is a file path; it does not specify expected format/extension, absolute vs relative path, or whether the directory must already exist. This leaves the agent guessing about the most important input.

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?

States a specific verb ('Crée') and a precisely scoped resource ('un classeur Excel de suivi vierge') and even enumerates the columns it will contain, so an agent knows exactly what artifact will exist afterwards. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like suivi_lister or suivi_verifier, which operate on data rather than creating a blank template.

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 implied use case (produce a fresh tracking template to fill in later) is deducible, and the 'refuses to overwrite' clause effectively states one when-not condition. However, no sibling is named as an alternative and there is no guidance on when to use this versus suivi_lister/suivi_verifier or what to do if the file already exists.

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