Créer un(e) ressource

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it returns the created resource with its ID, which is behavioral insight beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the action and return value. Every sentence is necessary and informative with zero waste.

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 creation tool with annotations and implied output schema, the description covers the essential action and return. It does not discuss side effects or permissions, but for a simple resource creation, the information is sufficient. Lacks only minor context like typical use cases.

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% (all 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning; it only mentions the return. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already covers parameter semantics.

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 action: creating a new resource in BoondManager. It distinguishes from sibling tools which operate on different entities (absences, accounts, candidates, etc.). The return value is specified, enhancing clarity.

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 versus alternatives like boond_resources_update or delete. It does not mention required permissions or prerequisites. The agent gets no context for decision-making among siblings.

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