create_directory_line

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states it creates a line (write operation) and describes the hierarchical levels, but does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if a line already exists, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any return value details despite the presence of an output 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's function and scope, making it highly efficient.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and a presence of output schema), the description covers the main purpose and parameter hierarchy. However, it lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., needing a platform_id from an Approved Platform) and does not explain the return value or error scenarios, which the output schema would typically provide.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the significance of the SIREN level (entire company) and the hierarchy (SIREN/SIRET, SIREN/SIRET/routing-code), which is not present in the schema. This helps the agent understand parameter relationships beyond raw definitions.

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 creates a directory line (electronic invoice receiving address) for a taxable entity, which is required for PPF directory registration. It distinguishes from siblings like update_directory_line and delete_directory_line by focusing on creation, and explains the different levels (SIREN, SIREN/SIRET, etc.), providing specificity.

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 explains when to use this tool: to register in the PPF directory and allow other companies to send electronic invoices. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related operations, such as searching or updating lines.

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