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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description adds important behavioral details: only provided fields are modified, the amount is in euros, and annual depreciation is automatically recalculated if amount or duration change. This discloses side effects and units not inferable from the schema or annotations.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: the first states purpose, the second explains partial update, and the third gives unit and side effect. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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 provides core facts for a partial update tool: purpose, partial update semantics, unit, and automatic recalculation. It doesn't detail return values (no output schema) or all parameter meanings, but the schema supplies parameter names. The coverage is adequate given the tool's moderate complexity.

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 for parameter meanings. It adds value by clarifying that amount is in euros and that duration_years impacts depreciation. However, other parameters (tva_rate, work_date, is_dedicated, description) remain unexplained, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 explicitly states 'Met à jour un poste de travaux immobiliers existant' (updates an existing real estate work item), using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_property_work and delete_property_work by focusing on updating existing items.

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 phrase 'Seuls les champs fournis sont modifiés (mise à jour partielle)' explains partial update behavior, giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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