Créer une référence (expérience pro) sur une ressource

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (which only provide negative hints) by disclosing the read-modify-write behavior, the embedded nature of references, and the leading-zero date rejection pitfall. This is valuable context that helps the agent anticipate side effects and constraints. No contradiction with annotations detected.

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 and well-structured: a clear purpose, an important behavioral warning, required fields, date edge cases, and an alternative tool. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose, and warning emojis efficiently highlight critical pitfalls.

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 description is highly complete for a create tool: it explains the embedded sub-object nature, the read-modify-write flow, required parameters, date constraints, and the relationship to the update tool. It omits only return-value details, but no output schema exists, so this is not a significant gap.

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%, and the schema descriptions already document all parameters and constraints, including min/max values and the leading-zero warning. The description only summarizes required fields and date format notes, adding marginal value beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states the tool creates a professional experience (reference) attached to a resource's technical data (DT), which is a specific verb + resource + scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly directing users to boond_resources_reference_update when completing an existing reference.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. the alternative: 'Pour compléter une référence existante, utiliser boond_resources_reference_update pour ne pas dupliquer.' It also explains the underlying read-modify-write flow, helping users understand why this tool is for creating new references and not for editing.

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