Créer une action

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

The description discloses important behavioral details: the mandatory dependsOn relation, the positioningId requirement for certain action types (with error 422 note), the companyId-only-with-contactId constraint, and the return of the created action with its ID. This extends well beyond the minimal annotations (all false) to give agents actionable expectations.

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 well-structured with a purpose sentence, an args list, and a return statement. It is moderately long but every line adds value, without 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 create operation with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, parameter constraints, API caveats (positioning error), and return behavior. It provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly, even if it lacks full examples.

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?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial relational semantics not visible in the schema: exactly one of contactId, candidateId, resourceId, opportunityId, or projectId is required, companyId pairs only with contactId, and positioningId is API-required for positioning-linked action types. This elevates it above the schema baseline.

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 (call, email, appointment, note) in BoondManager, specifies the attachable entity types (contact, candidate, resource, opportunity, project), and includes the mandatory dependsOn relation. This distinguishes it from search/get/update/delete siblings.

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 on when to use: creating an action tied to any supported entity, and it notes the mandatory dependsOn relation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, which prevents a 5.

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