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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: PATCH-style semantics ('Changes only the fields supplied'), dry_run performing no write, and no change to publication state. This is valuable context, especially since the tool is marked destructive. It still does not address expected_revision conflict behavior, but it goes well beyond what the annotations alone reveal.

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 short and front-loaded, with the key PATCH behavior stated first and no filler. The category list is somewhat vague, but the overall structure is economical and readable.

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 a nested 30-field patch object, a required revision parameter, and destructive annotations, this description is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently. The dry_run and publication-state notes help, but they do not compensate for missing field mapping, revision semantics, or guidance on what a valid patch looks like.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only provides broad categories rather than mapping to actual schema fields. It does not explain required parameters like catalogue_id or expected_revision, nor does it clarify how the patch object should be structured, leaving the agent to infer too much from French property names.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Changes only the fields supplied' and then lists affected areas such as colours, bar, controls, sound, reading, logo, title, language, and PDF. This makes the tool's purpose as a partial catalogue-reader/metadata update reasonably clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from nearby siblings like foliade_update_theme or foliade_get_catalogue_settings.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as theme updates, enrichment updates, or publication tools. The only usage-related detail is the behavior of dry_run, which is a parameter hint rather than tool-selection guidance.

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