Supprimer une référence (expérience pro)

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

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the read-modify-write process, the irreversible nature of the action, the warning to verify the ID, and the exact error behavior when `referenceId` is not found (`isError: true` plus the list of present IDs). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: core action, read-modify-write mechanism, irreversibility warning, usage guidance, alternative routing, and return/error behavior. The structure is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 destructive, non-idempotent operation with no output schema, the description covers the action, scope, when to use it, the alternative, irreversibility, and both success and failure return signals. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, with both `resourceId` and `referenceId` already well documented. The description reinforces the need to verify the ID but does not materially expand parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 verb and resource: 'Supprime une référence (expérience professionnelle) du DT d'une ressource.' It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling `boond_resources_reference_update` by stating that the update tool corrects a reference rather than destroying it.

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' clause gives the exact scenario: removing an experience entered by mistake or on explicit user request. It also names the alternative tool (`boond_resources_reference_update`) and the condition that selects it, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this delete operation.

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