Réimporter une page depuis le CMS

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

The description states the tool 'overwrites' the GPSEM version, which is a destructive action, but the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction. Additionally, no details on permissions, reversibility, or response behavior are provided, and the annotations do not compensate.

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: two sentences plus an endpoint. It front-loads the core action and overwritten fields. The endpoint inclusion is somewhat redundant with the tool name but not harmful. No unnecessary fluff.

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 write operation with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify side effects, reversibility, and required permissions. It mentions overwriting and recording a code but omits auth requirements, failure modes, and behavior beyond the overwrite. The contradiction with destructiveHint further reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 50%: only siteId has a description ('ID site encodé (hashid)'), pageId has none. The description does not explain either parameter beyond what the schema provides, and does not compensate for the missing pageId documentation. It does mention overwritten fields but not how they relate to parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Réimporter') and resource ('une page depuis le CMS'), and clearly states the action: overwriting the GPSEM version with the CMS version, listing the fields affected (title, content, tags, status, categories). This differentiates it from the sibling 'pushPageToCms' by direction.

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 implies the usage direction (CMS to GPSEM) and what it overwrites, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pushPageToCms' or when to avoid it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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