Créer un(e) contact

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, establishing this as a write, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the return value detail (data with ID), which is a useful behavioral trait beyond the annotations. However, no additional context such as permissions, validation, or side effects is provided, so a middle score is appropriate.

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 exactly two short sentences: the first front-loads the action, and the second states the return value. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. This is an appropriate size for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The full schema and annotations cover required parameters and safety profile, and the output schema (present) handles return structure. However, the description does not mention non-idempotency explicitly (though annotated) or any prerequisites like linking to a company. For a create operation, slightly more context about duplicate creation or validation would improve completeness, but it is minimally adequate.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-related meaning, such as relationships between fields or optionality context, so it does not exceed the 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 the action ('Crée un(e) nouvel(le) contact') and the resource ('BoondManager'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like boond_contacts_get, boond_contacts_search, and boond_contacts_update. The verb 'create' makes the operation unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boond_contacts_update or boond_contacts_search. It only states the action, leaving usage context to be implied from the tool name, which is insufficient for an agent deciding between create and other operations.

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