pennylane_update_supplier

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuine value with PATCH semantics ('Seuls les champs fournis sont mis à jour'), telling the agent it need not resend every field. It says nothing about permissions, validation errors, or null handling, so 3 is appropriate against an already-rich annotation set.

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?

Two short sentences, zero padding, and the update semantics are front-loaded right after the action statement. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

With an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description need not explain return values. It is adequate for a mutation tool, but for a supplier update it omits useful context: whether null values clear fields, whether changing reg_no/vat_number triggers validation, and any auth requirements.

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 100%, so each of the 8 parameters (id, iban, name, emails, reg_no, vat_number, payment_method, establishment_no) is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the generic claim that unspecified fields are untouched, which is baseline for a partial-update tool.

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 ('Modifie un fournisseur existant'), which clearly separates it from pennylane_create_supplier and pennylane_get_supplier. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it lands at a solid 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the supplier must exist, the id must be valid), and no reference to alternatives such as pennylane_create_supplier or the changelog tools. The partial-update note implies usage but does not route the agent.

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