Creer une prestation/livraison

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Écriture non idempotente' (non-idempotent write), which is important for an agent to know. It also states the returned ID is required by expense lines (boond_expenses_create), providing downstream context. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line definition, a 'Quand' section for usage, a 'Plutôt que' section for alternatives, bullet points for key constraints, and a return note. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to use it, what it returns, non-idempotency, and the downstream consumer of the returned ID. It doesn't explain all 12 parameters, but the schema already covers those. The only minor gap is not describing the full return structure, but the description says it returns confirmation and the created prestation record.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters. The description adds that project and resource are mandatory and expect numeric IDs, which is useful but partially redundant with the schema's required list. It doesn't add much beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool creates a prestation (delivery) attached to a project and resource, with a specific purpose: opening the mission line that makes the resource billable on the project. It distinguishes itself from the sibling boond_projects_deliveries_groupments by explicitly saying 'Plutôt que' (rather than) for listing existing prestations.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Quand : pour ouvrir la ligne de mission qui rendra la ressource facturable sur ce projet') and provides an alternative ('Plutôt que : boond_projects_deliveries_groupments pour lister les prestations déjà en place sur le projet'). This is clear usage guidance with an explicit exclusion.

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