create_intervention

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'create' which implies a write operation, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, whether the intervention is created as a draft or immediately validated, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise phrase, but it is under-specified given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema). The brevity comes at the cost of essential information, making it less useful than an appropriate length would allow.

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?

This tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a minimal description. It does not explain return values, side effects, preconditions, or relationships to other intervention-related tools. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description is inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without additional context.

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?

The schema descriptions cover 75% of parameters (6 out of 8) with clear French labels like 'Durée en secondes' and 'ID du client'. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning. With moderate-to-high schema coverage, the baseline of 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 'Créer une fiche d'intervention' uses a specific verb (créer) and resource (fiche d'intervention), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_intervention, list_interventions, and add_intervention_line. This provides unambiguous intent.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints are given. It simply states the action without any decision framework.

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