Créer un(e) facture

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

The annotations already indicate that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the return value context ('Données du/de la facture créé(e) avec son ID'), which is not covered by annotations, but it does not disclose other behavioral details such as required permissions, potential side effects on linked objects, or validation rules.

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, with two short sentences that front-load the primary action and then provide return information. Every sentence contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool has 10 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. It does not mention potential dependencies (e.g., whether an orderId is required) or clarify that all fields are optional, leaving those details to the schema. The return sentence is useful but redundant if the output schema is visible.

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 covers all 10 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, leaving the schema to fully document parameter meaning.

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's action with a specific verb and resource: 'Crée un(e) nouvel(le) facture dans BoondManager'. This distinguishes it from sibling invoice tools like search, get, update, and delete, and also from provider_invoices_create.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with other invoice operations, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and description.

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