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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it. The ownership/auth constraint is useful ('appartenant à l'utilisateur authentifié'), but nothing is said about partial-update semantics (content and category default to null), reversibility, permission failures, or what happens to fields omitted from the call. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity is a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage needs far more than one sentence. The description also does not match the surrounding English tool naming convention, which may add friction. An agent cannot determine which fields are updatable or what a successful call returns.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions content, category, actfile_id, or auth_token, leaving the two optional mutable fields and their null-default behavior completely unexplained. Only the implicit ownership of the actfile is conveyed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Met à jour un actfile') plus a scoping constraint ('appartenant à l'utilisateur authentifié'). This distinguishes it from update_community and update_user by resource, though it never says which actfile fields are modifiable. Clear purpose, but thin on the what-changes detail that separates it from get_actfile/create_actfile in an agent's mind.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not point to get_actfile for reads, delete_actfile for removal, or create_actfile for new records, and gives no preconditions beyond the ownership hint. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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