Creer une facture fournisseur

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

Annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only and non-idempotent; the description reinforces this with Écriture non idempotente and adds the response expectation (confirmation et fiche de la facture fournisseur créée). It does not discuss permissions, duplicate handling, or errors, but it discloses the core side effect and return behavior beyond the boolean hints.

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 compact and well organized: purpose, when/alternative, caveats, then return value. Every sentence earns its place, and the routing guidance is front-loaded ahead of the parameter caveats.

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 operation with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: exact purpose, sibling differentiation, non-idempotent write, and a return expectation, while the schema handles parameter semantics. A fully complete definition might also cover duplicate-reference or error behavior, but an agent has enough to call this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented and the baseline is met without extra parameter detail. The added caveat about resource, providerCompany, and providerContact being numeric IDs is helpful in intent, but it uses names that do not exactly match the schema properties resourceId, companyId, and contactId.

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 opens with Crée une facture fournisseur and immediately qualifies it as facture reçue d'un prestataire, pinning down exactly what the tool creates. It also names the sibling boond_invoices_create when differentiating, so an agent can tell this tool apart from the sales-invoice tool without inspecting schemas.

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 gives an explicit Quand clause (pour enregistrer la facture émise par un sous-traitant) and an explicit Plutôt que clause naming boond_invoices_create for sale invoices. This is direct when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with the alternative named.

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