Create Furniture

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

The description contradicts the annotations. Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, implying destructive behavior, but the description states this tool 'creates' a new furniture record. This is a direct contradiction, so the score must be 1 per the rubric.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence provides essential information: what is created, the currency of the amount, and the depreciation rules. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify return values, but it does not. Additionally, the annotation contradiction and lack of explanation for several parameters leave the tool under-specified. The description covers the LMNP context and depreciation defaults, but missing side effects, return value, and parameter details make it incomplete.

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 description adds valuable semantics for some parameters: it specifies that 'amount' is in euros and explains the default duration (5 years) and the 3-year duration for second-hand furniture, which relates to 'duration_years' and 'is_second_hand'. However, it does not explain tva_rate, is_dedicated, or the format/role of purchase_date, leaving gaps for several parameters.

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 function: 'Crée un élément de mobilier amortissable pour un bien LMNP' (creates a depreciable furniture item for an LMNP property). This is a specific verb+resource, and the mention of 'mobilier' distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_expense or create_property.

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 clear context: it is for creating furniture items within an LMNP property, with depreciation specifics (5 years default, 3 for second-hand). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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