Ajouter un événement à l'historique

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operationhip. The description adds the useful constraint that only certain families (100, 300, 310, 320) are allowed serveur-side, which is behavioral context beyond the raw schema. It does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or duplication behavior, but the annotation set partially covers the safety profile.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the action and use case, then specifying the family constraint)Skip exactly the endpoint. Every element earns its place and no space is wasted on redundant details already present in the schema.

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?

Despite being a write operation with 11 parameters, no output schema, and a nested object, the description does not explain expected return values, required parameter relationships, or the structure/meaning of the nested 'details' object. The use case and family constraint help, but they are not enough for a tool with this parameter complexity.

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 only 18%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. It adds one valuable constraint: the allowed families for the 'code' parameter. It leaves the meaning and relationship of the other nine parameters undocumented, including 'details', 'page_id', 'page_url', 'source', and 'category_id'.

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 identifies the action: adding an event to a site's history. It goes beyond the title by specifying the exact use case (signaling modifications made outside GPSEM) with concrete examples, and the POST endpoint further confirms the write operation. This distinguishes it from read-only sibling tools like getSiteHistorique.

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 gives clear context for when the tool should be used: to log changes made outside GPSEM such as redesigns, robots.txt updates, link campaigns, or reworked content. It also constrains valid input by stating authorized families. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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