Créer une référence (expérience pro) sur une ressource

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

Annotations only signal readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint false, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false – so the agent knows it's a mutation but not the specifics. The description discloses the read-modify-write pattern, the embedded sub-object nature, the leading-zero rejection, and that the API may not return an ID. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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 well-structured and every sentence earns its place. It opens with purpose, then alternatives, behavior, field/date requirements, and return expectations. It uses bullet-like separators and warnings effectively. It is long but not wasteful, with each detail relevant to correct invocation.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers required fields, date constraints, the read-modify-write mechanism, and what it returns (confirmation, count, and ID with a caveat). It also alerts about API quirks (leading-zero rejection). Nothing critical seems missing for an agent to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already described. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying date formats (accepts int or string, no leading zero) and explicitly stating required fields, which reinforces the schema. While not every parameter gets new info, the date constraint note is valuable and beyond the schema's type declarations, so a 4 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 verb and object: 'Crée une expérience professionnelle (référence) rattachée au DT d'une ressource.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly naming boond_resources_technical_data_update for other technical-data blocks and boond_resources_reference_update for completing existing references. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs.

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 states when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Plutôt que boond_resources_technical_data_update pour les autres blocs du dossier technique...' and 'Pour compléter une référence existante, utiliser boond_resources_reference_update pour ne pas dupliquer.' This gives explicit routing, including a condition to avoid duplication, satisfying the guideline requirements.

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