Mark homework entries as done or to redo using IDs from cahier_lire, mirroring the ENT checkbox.
Marque des travaux du cahier de texte comme faits (ou à refaire), comme la case à cocher de l'ENT. Les identifiants viennent de cahier_lire.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| etat | Yes | ||
| travaux | Yes | Identifiants des travaux (champ `id` renvoyé par `cahier_lire`). | |
| cahier_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's added value here is the checkbox-style toggling behavior, which is a modest disclosure. It does not state permissions required, what happens to items not listed, or any partial-success behavior on a mutation tool.
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, front-loaded sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the action and its semantics, the second gives the ID source. No padding or repetition of the tool name.
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 3-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete — the ID provenance and toggle semantics are the key missing pieces and the ID provenance is supplied. Only the etat value mismatch and absence of auth/failure context leave a small gap.
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?
Description adds one real semantic hint — travaux ids originate from cahier_lire — but does not name or map the etat values precisely: it says 'fait (ou à refaire)' while the schema enum only offers 'fait' and 'a_faire', a naming mismatch that could confuse an agent. With 33% schema coverage, the description partially but not fully compensates.
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 (marquer) and resource (travaux du cahier de texte) plus the effect (faits / à refaire), which is clear enough for an agent to distinguish this mutation from read siblings like cahier_lire and cahier_lister. The checkbox analogy reinforces the intent, though the purpose is not differentiated from any other mark/toggle tool explicitly.
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 supplies one actionable prerequisite — that the identifiers come from cahier_lire — which is genuinely useful routing information. However, it states no when-to-use condition, no when-not-to-use, and no alternative to this mutation, so guidance remains implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.