Créer un(e) bon de commande

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

The description adds the return behavior: 'Returns: Données du/de la bon de commande créé(e) avec son ID' (Returns data of the created order with its ID). This goes beyond the annotations, which are all false and provide no specific behavioral hints. However, it does not disclose other traits like idempotency, side effects beyond creation, or any required permissions.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a brief return note. Every word serves a purpose, with no filler or repetition of what is already evident from the tool name or schema.

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 11-parameter schema with 100% descriptions and an output schema, the description is adequate. It clearly states the creation action and the return value. It could be more complete if it noted that all parameters are optional, but that information is already conveyed in the schema. The lack of context about prerequisites or related fields is not critical given the schema richness.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions the return value but not parameter nuances, so it neither adds nor detracts from the schema-level descriptions.

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) bon de commande' (Creates a new purchase order), providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling search/get/update/delete tools by focusing on the creation action.

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 usage is implied by the verb 'Crée' (creates) and the context of being a create operation. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or update, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is minimal, relying on the obvious purpose.

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