Envoyer une page au CMS

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it can either create or update an article, and it records a specific code (300-05-001) in history. This extra context beyond the annotations helps the agent understand side effects, justifying a 4.

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 very concise, with three compact sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the side effect and the endpoint. Every sentence adds value: verb+resource, create/update distinction, history code, and HTTP method. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks details on the operation's effects (e.g., what happens to existing content, success/failure indicators) and does not explain the history code's significance. An agent might need more information to handle errors or verify success, so a 3 is fair.

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%, with only siteId having a description ('ID site encodé (hashid)'). The description does not explain the parameters further; it only implies the context. Since high coverage would be a baseline of 3, but here coverage is lower, the description should compensate, but it doesn't. The siteId description in schema helps, but pageId lacks any description in both schema and tool description, so a 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 verb 'Envoie' (send) and the resource 'page' to the CMS, with the purpose of creating or updating an article. It distinguishes from siblings like pullPageFromCms by the direction (push vs pull). The inclusion of the HTTP endpoint adds specificity, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 when to use this tool (when you need to send a page to the CMS) and contrasts with pullPageFromCms through the verb. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or specify when to use a sibling like updatePage. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but lacks direct comparison.

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