Saisir ou compléter un CRA

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds significant behavioral detail: it calls no BoondManager API, reads no data, is generated server-side, and returns a runbook for the model to execute. This prevents an agent from assuming the tool creates or updates a CRA directly despite its name and title.

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 with clear sections for purpose, when to use, alternative, behavioral note, and return value. It is slightly repetitive in stating that no API is called and that the output is a runbook, but overall every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return value (a text runbook with ordered Boond calls and exact filters) and the model's responsibility to execute them. Combined with annotations that cover safety, the definition is complete for an agent to invoke 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%, so all three parameters are already well documented with defaults, formats, and resolution rules. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics; it is reasonable to rely on the schema here.

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 first states the user goal (enter or complete a CRA) and then precisely defines the tool's action: generating an ordered runbook of Boond calls rather than performing them directly. It distinguishes itself from the `saisir_cra` MCP prompt and from sibling workflow tools by clarifying its server-side, instruction-only role.

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' section explicitly gives the use case: running a multi-step CRA scenario without manually chaining tools and filter names. The 'Plutôt que' section names the exact alternative (`saisir_cra` prompt) and the condition for choosing this tool over it (clients that handle `prompts/get` poorly), which is concrete and actionable.

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