Creer un paiement

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds no further behavioral details, such as side effects, permission requirements, or what happens on success or failure. The only additional information is the purchase relationship requirement, which is more of a constraint than a behavioral disclosure.

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 concise French sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first states the action, the second states a key constraint. No redundant language or unnecessary details.

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?

With 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters interrelate, or typical usage patterns. The single prerequisite about the purchase relationship is useful but far from sufficient for a complex creation tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; the relationship to a purchase is already clearly represented by the 'purchaseId' parameter description. No parameter-specific guidance or grouping is provided in the description.

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 function with a specific verb 'Cree' (creates) and resource 'paiement fournisseur lie a un achat' (supplier payment linked to a purchase). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_payments_get and boond_payments_search, which focus on retrieval or search.

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 a clear usage precondition: 'L'API Boond /payments requiert une relation purchase' (the Boond /payments API requires a purchase relationship). This tells the agent that a purchase must exist before creating a payment. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when to avoid using it, but the context is clear enough.

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