Créer une référence (expérience pro) sur une ressource

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

Describes the read-modify-write internal operation (lit la liste actuelle, ajoute, republie). Warns about date format constraints (leading zeros rejected). Adds significant context beyond annotations which only indicate non-destructive, non-read-only.

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 concise (3 short paragraphs), uses clear bullet points with emoji warnings, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 (10 params, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, relationship to other tools, internal behavior, parameter caveats, and required fields. No gaps identified.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 10 parameters. The description adds emphasis on required fields and critical date format warnings (e.g., '05' with leading zero rejected). This provides extra value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Crée' (creates), the resource 'expérience professionnelle (référence)', and the context 'rattachée au DT d'une ressource'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like boond_resources_reference_update and boond_resources_reference_delete.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (to create a reference) and when to use an alternative ('Pour compléter une référence existante, utiliser boond_resources_reference_update'). Also explains that references are embedded sub-objects, setting context.

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