Créer un(e) candidat

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

The description adds the return note 'Returns: Données du/de la candidat créé(e) avec son ID', which is useful context beyond annotations. It does not mention side effects or prerequisites, but annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation, so the bar is lower.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the main purpose and a short line for the return value. No wasted words, front-loaded with action.

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 full schema and presence of an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, though it could mention that only firstName and lastName are required or distinguish from update/delete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 10 parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 'Crée un(e) nouvel(le) candidat dans BoondManager', specifying the action (create) and resource (candidate). It distinguishes from sibling tools like boond_candidates_update or boond_candidates_delete through the verb 'create', though it is close to restating the title.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that update should be used for existing candidates or search for finding candidates. The context is only implied by the action verb.

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