create_thirdparty

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action, such as permissions, duplicate handling, required fields (though schema lists name), or response format. This is a mutation tool, so more context is needed.

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 sentence in French, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and it is efficiently sized for the purpose.

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 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not mention the required 'name' field, expected response, or any side effects. While the schema covers parameters, the description lacks broader context for a complex create operation.

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 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Créer' = create) and the resource ('tiers' = third party), specifying it covers client, prospect, or supplier. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_thirdparty or get_thirdparty.

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 context is clear: the tool is for creating new third parties. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the 'create' verb strongly implies use for new records, and update_thirdparty exists for modifications, providing implicit guidance.

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