Créer un(e) ressource

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

The description adds one meaningful behavioral detail: "Returns: Données du/de la ressource créé(e) avec son ID." This explains the return value, which is not covered by the annotations (readOnlyHint=false etc.). However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or validation behavior beyond the schema. With annotations present but minimal, this is a reasonable middle score.

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 exceptionally concise: one sentence for purpose and one for the return value. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word adds value, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Although the output schema exists and the description mentions the return wrapper, the description lacks broader context. It does not explain what a 'ressource' is in BoondManager, when to use this tool versus candiate/contact creation, or what side effects (e.g., status changes) occur. For a 9-parameter creation tool with many siblings, this minimal description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand its place.

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 schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. For example, the schema already defines fields like firstName and lastName as required. The description could have compensated for terse field labels (e.g., 'Ville'), but it does not, so it stays at baseline.

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: "Crée un(e) nouvel(le) ressource dans BoondManager." This provides a specific verb (create), resource (ressource), and system (BoondManager). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling create tools such as boond_candidates_create or boond_contacts_create, so it lacks a small amount of differentiation 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, required fields, or situations where creation is appropriate. Given the large sibling list with similar create operations, this absence makes it harder for an agent to select the correct tool.

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