Créer un avantage

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

The description explicitly states 'Écriture non idempotente', consistent with idempotentHint=false, and adds a useful reliability caveat: the body was inferred from models.advantage and is 'non éprouvé sur un tenant de test'. It also tells the agent the return contains a confirmation and advantage ID. It does not cover auth or errors, but annotations already cover read-only/destructive aspects.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose, when/alternative, caveats, and return value are each in short labeled blocks. There is no filler, and the most important usage constraint is front-loaded.

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 12-parameter create operation with full schema descriptions and an output schema, the description supplies the key workflow context, the deduplication warning, non-idempotence, and an implementation caveat. It does not enumerate validation or error behavior, but nothing essential for selecting and invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 every parameter already has a description in the input schema. The prose adds a high-level grouping via 'models.advantage' and mentions relationships (resource/contract/project/delivery), but it does not add new per-parameter semantics 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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Attribue un avantage ... à une ressource', with concrete examples (tickets restaurant, mutuelle, véhicule). It also differentiates from siblings by saying to use it after boond_advantages_default and instead of boond_advantages_search first.

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 'Quand' and 'Plutôt que' sections give explicit workflow guidance: run boond_advantages_default first to know types and amounts, and do not call boond_advantages_search first because the API does not deduplicate. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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