create_item

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Toujours demander confirmation des informations avant de créer'. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or what happens after creation (e.g., whether the item is immediately available). This is useful but incomplete.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage triggers, then the confirmation requirement. Every sentence contributes meaningfully, with no redundancy or filler.

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 create operation with 6 parameters, the description covers the basic workflow and confirmation step. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling create_item_from_image (which may be relevant when images are involved), nor does it mention expected return values (no output schema exists). The absence of these contextual clues leaves moderate gaps.

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%, so the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics—it only references 'les informations' generically. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Créer un nouveau produit dans le catalogue ERPNext'. It also provides concrete trigger phrases ('ajoute ce produit', 'nouveau produit à créer') that distinguish it from image-based creation (sibling create_item_from_image) and other item-related tools.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Utiliser quand un nouveau produit est référencé pour la première fois' and includes user-phrase triggers. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives (e.g., create_item_from_image for image-based input), so it falls short of a 5.

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