Créer une action

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations by explaining the mandatory relationship (dependsOn) and the dictionary source for typeOf. However, it does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or failure behavior. Annotations already indicate it's not readOnly, not destructive, not idempotent, so the description adds moderate value.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args list is structured clearly with each parameter's role, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary text.

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 complexity (11 parameters, 1 required) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavior: creation of an action with attachment. It explains relationships and optional fields. The return value is briefly stated, which suffices without an output schema.

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%, and the description adds meaning by explaining the dictionary source for typeOf, the requirement for exactly one entity ID, and that companyId is only used with contactId. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it creates a new action (appel, email, RDV, note) attached to various entities. The verb 'crée' is specific, and the resource is explicitly defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like boond_actions_delete, boond_actions_get, and boond_actions_search.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (creating an action attached to an entity) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No comparison to other creation tools is given, and there is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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