Créer un site

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: creation is conditional on quota, failure yields 402, and the response includes keycms for CMS connection. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value: the quota condition, the 402 error, the keycms return, and the endpoint. No filler or redundancy.

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 creation tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: endpoint, precondition, failure mode, and return value. It does not explain all input parameters, but the schema partially handles that. Overall, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 55%, so the schema partially documents parameters like name, goal, site_type, and entrepriseId. However, the description adds no input parameter semantics beyond the endpoint path; it focuses on output and preconditions. With 11 parameters and only partial schema coverage, the description should have compensated more.

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 states a specific action ('Crée un site') and resource (site), and distinguishes itself by noting the subscription/quota precondition and the keycms return value. It also includes the exact endpoint, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like createPage.

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 usage context: use only if the active subscription allows it, check subscription.can_add_site via GET /me, and expect a 402 otherwise. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the precondition and error behavior provide enough guidance for when to call this tool.

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