generate_document_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description must explain behavior fully, but it only says 'generate/regenerate' with no details on side effects (e.g., overwriting existing PDFs), required permissions, or what the output is (file path, binary, success flag). This is a significant gap for a generation tool.

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, concise sentence in French that communicates the core action efficiently. It contains no fluff and is easily scannable, making it highly concise.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 simple parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It lacks information about return values, error scenarios, or prerequisites, but the modulepart parameter enumerates supported modules. The absence of an output schema shifts some burden to the description, so it falls short of being complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so the description doesn't need to add much. However, it doesn't enhance the schema descriptions or clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., whether langcode is optional). Baseline 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 action: generate/regenerate a PDF for a Dolibarr document. It uses a specific verb and resource, and although it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, no sibling tool performs PDF generation, so the purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention contexts like regenerating an existing PDF versus creating a new one, nor does it reference related tools such as get_document or delete_document.

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