Créer un positionnement

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: explicitly warns about non-idempotence (duplicate positionings possible), clarifies the state field is a dictionary integer ID not a label, and states the return value. No contradiction with 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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage context with alternatives, then key behavioral warnings as bullets, then return value. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the action does, when to use it, how it differs from the update sibling, the non-idempotent behavior, the state format, and the return payload. The one-of-pair parameter relationship is also conveyed, so an agent has sufficient guidance to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds relational meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that candidateId/resourceId and opportunityId/projectId are alternatives ('un candidat ou une ressource sur une opportunité ou un projet') and by specifying the state parameter as a dictionary integer ID, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Crée un positionnement' and defines the action concretely as placing a candidate or resource on an opportunity or project. It differentiates from the sibling boond_positionings_update by explicitly naming the alternative.

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?

Provides a clear 'Quand' condition (materializing a profile proposal to the client) and an explicit 'Plutôt que' section explaining when to prefer boond_positionings_update for advancing states instead of creating a second positioning. This is unambiguous routing between siblings.

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