update_thirdparty

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it fails. It does not state whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens to unspecified fields, if it requires special permissions, or what the response contains. This is a significant transparency 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the core purpose. It contains no filler or redundancy. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing essential context, but that is penalized under other dimensions. For conciseness, it earns high marks for being succinct.

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?

For a tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain return values, error behavior, validity constraints, or the semantics of each field. It provides only the most basic statement of intent, leaving the agent without enough information to use the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is only 9% (only 'id' is described). The description provides no additional meaning for the 10 other parameters (zip, name, town, email, phone, client, address, fournisseur, note_public, note_private) nor does it explain how they relate to updating a third party. The description does nothing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('Mettre à jour' = update) on a specific resource ('les informations d'un tiers existant' = information of an existing third party). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_thirdparty (create) and get_thirdparty (read) by emphasizing 'existing' and 'update'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to prefer update_thirdparty over create_thirdparty or other update tools, or any exclusions. The description is a single declarative sentence with no usage context.

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