Créer une période d'inactivité

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds context: 'Écriture non idempotente' confirms the non-idempotency, 'Corps déduit de models.inactivity — non éprouvé sur un tenant de test' warns about reliability, and it states the return includes structuredContent.id. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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-organized: a purpose statement, a 'Quand' section, a 'Plutôt que' section with alternatives, bullet points on body derivation and idempotency, and a return note. Every sentence adds value with no fluff, and key information 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 write operation with 9 parameters and an output schema, the description covers usage context, alternatives, a reliability caveat, and return structure. It doesn't detail validation rules or error cases, but the schema and output schema provide structural completeness. The description is adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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%, with each parameter already having meaningful descriptions (e.g., resourceId as 'ID de la ressource en intercontrat / inactivité'). The description adds a general reference to the body fields (title, startDate, endDate, inactivityType, coûts) but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 declares an inactivity period (intercontrat, formation interne, congé sans solde) for a resource between two assignments. It explicitly differentiates from siblings: 'Plutôt que boond_absences_create pour une absence' and 'boond_deliveries_create pour une nouvelle prestation', making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use: 'Quand une ressource sort de mission sans relais immédiat' and provides alternatives with conditions: 'Plutôt que boond_absences_create pour une absence (congés, maladie); boond_deliveries_create pour une nouvelle prestation.' This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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