Creer une facture fournisseur

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

Annotations are all false and provide no safety hints. The description does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, or what the creation entails (e.g., whether it triggers workflows or affects other records). For a create tool, this lacks crucial transparency.

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 very concise (one sentence), but the content is minimal. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but the lack of detail makes it borderline under-specified rather than efficient.

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 complexity (14 parameters, 4 required) and no output schema, the description should provide more context about return values, validation, or behavior. It does not compensate for the missing output schema or help the agent understand what a successful creation returns.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds no value. It mentions three parameters (resource, providerCompany, providerContact) but does not map them to the schema properties (resourceId, companyId, contactId) or clarify their roles beyond the schema. This omission reduces its helpfulness.

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 it creates a provider invoice (facture fournisseur) with resource, providerCompany, and providerContact. The verb 'destroy' is not used; 'create' is appropriate. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'boond_invoices_create' which might create client invoices, relying on the tool name for distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'boond_invoices_create' or when not to use it. No prerequisites or context are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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