Créer une page

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, mutating operation, but the description adds value by disclosing the default draft state, the push_to_cms side effect, and the history logging. These are behaviors not covered by annotations, so the description enhances transparency beyond the structured data.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action, then an important side-effect, and a final note on history. Two sentences carry significant meaning with no fluff, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

With 19 parameters, no output schema, and only 37% schema description coverage, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the return value, possible status/type effects, or how parameters interact. An agent would lack critical details to correctly invoke and understand the tool's full behavior.

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 37%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. It mentions push_to_cms but fails to explain other parameters like type, status, slug, content, or title_tag. The schema provides descriptions for type and status, but many parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent without guidance for most inputs.

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 verb 'Créer' (create), the resource 'une page' (a page), and the system 'GPSEM', distinguishing it from sibling tools like updatePage or getPage. It also specifies the default draft behavior and the optional CMS push, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: it creates a page, default draft, with an option to push to CMS. It implies when to use it (creating a new page) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It gives enough context for a typical creation scenario, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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