Créer un achat/sous-traitance

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows it is a write operation but not idempotent or destructive. The description does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, or validation behavior.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary text.

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?

The tool has 8 optional parameters and no output schema. The description provides no information about required relationships (e.g., need for companyId or projectId), what constitutes a valid purchase, or what the tool returns upon success. The description is too minimal for a create operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter described (e.g., 'Titre de l'achat/sous-traitance', 'ID de la société fournisseur'). The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 creates a new purchase/subcontracting in BoondManager, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like boond_purchases_search or boond_purchases_get, though the action 'create' is explicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites or use cases. It simply restates the creation action.

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