Créer un drapeau

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond these: non-idempotency consequence ('deux appels créent deux drapeaux homonymes') and a caveat that the body is inferred from a model and untested ('non éprouvé sur un tenant de test'). It also clarifies the return shape. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't cover auth or rate limits, which are less critical for a simple create.

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 is front-loaded, usage guidelines follow, then caveats and return info. Every sentence adds value; there is no repetition or filler. The structure aids quick comprehension.

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 simple create tool with 2 parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering mutability/idempotency, the description provides everything an agent needs: when to use it, alternative behavior, non-idempotency warning, and return format. It also flags an untested body, which is extra context that helps the agent set expectations.

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% (both `name` and `mainManagerId` have clear descriptions). The description mentions `name` and `mainManager` in the model reference but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It neither clarifies formats nor introduces extra constraints, so baseline 3 for 100% coverage 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 a specific verb ('Crée') and resource ('un drapeau (tag) réutilisable') and explicitly differentiates from sibling `boond_flags_attach` by explaining that this creates a new flag while attach places an existing one. It also names the search-first prerequisite (`boond_flags_search`), making the tool's role unambiguous among the flags family.

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 ('avant `boond_flags_attach` quand aucun drapeau existant ne convient') and when-not-to-use ('Plutôt que : `boond_flags_attach` pour poser un drapeau existant'), plus a clear sequence suggestion (`boond_flags_search` d'abord). This is textbook usage guidance with alternatives named.

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