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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses key behaviors: partial updates (only provided fields modified), amount currency in euros, and automatic recalculation of annual depreciation when amount or duration changes. This adds valuable business logic context.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by two crucial behavioral details. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core update behavior and depreciation logic, but has gaps: no mention of return value, error handling, or semantics for most parameters. Given the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, this is adequate but not complete.

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 compensate, but it only addresses amount (currency) and duration (recalculation trigger). The partial update statement implies all fields are optional, but it doesn't explain tva_rate, is_dedicated, purchase_date, is_second_hand, or description. Six of eight parameters remain undocumented semantically.

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 clearly states the tool updates an existing furniture item, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from create_furniture and delete_furniture, and the partial update note adds further specificity.

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 description implies usage for existing furniture items, contrasting with creation, and clarifies that only provided fields are changed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but gives enough contextual cues for an agent to decide.

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