Modifier une absence

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds the partial update behavior ('Seuls les champs fournis sont modifiés'), which is useful but does not disclose additional traits like safety, side effects, or authorization needs beyond what annotations convey.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundancy, and no wasted words. It is efficiently front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does not mention return values. It also omits prerequisites or constraints (e.g., state values). Given the moderate complexity (5 params, no enums), the description is minimally adequate but lacks some context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. The partial update note reinforces the schema's implied semantics, but no extra meaning is added. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Met à jour') and resource ('une absence'), and the second sentence specifies partial update behavior. This distinguishes it effectively from siblings like 'boond_absences_create' and 'boond_absences_delete'.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name and context (siblings) imply usage for updating existing absences, but no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it is provided.

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