odoo_upsert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavioral trait of idempotency ('Rejouable sans doublon') and the dual create/update action, which is valuable for a mutation tool. However, it does not elaborate on error handling, permission requirements, or the format of 'values', leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary action, includes a concrete example, and adds usage guidance, making every sentence valuable.

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 upsert concept and the intended use case, but it omits essential parameter semantics for 'model' and 'values' and does not explain the expected format or behavior in edge cases. Since an output schema exists, return values do not need description, but the overall description is minimally sufficient for an expert user, not fully complete for an AI agent.

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?

The description only adds semantics for the 'xmlid' parameter by providing an example format ('monprojet.client_acme'). The 'model' and 'values' parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description, and with 0% schema coverage, this is a significant gap. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter meaning.

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's function: 'Creer ou mettre a jour par External ID', a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling odoo_create by emphasizing the upsert semantics and the External ID mechanism, so the agent knows exactly when to select this tool.

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?

It explicitly recommends this tool over odoo_create for 'maquette et import' (mockups and imports), giving a clear usage scenario. It also highlights the replayability ('Rejouable sans doublon') as a key advantage, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like odoo_write, which prevents a perfect score.

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