Modifier une absence

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

The description adds PATCH-like behavior with 'Seuls les champs fournis sont modifies', which is not covered by annotations. It also reinforces that the absence must already exist. Given the annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, and idempotent, this extra context is valuable.

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 short French sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'Met a jour'. No filler or repetition, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.

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 simple update tool with 5 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, this description covers the essential behavior. It could mention error cases or response format, but the annotations cover the safety profile, making it adequate for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is individually described. The description adds the crucial semantic that omitted parameters are left unchanged, clarifying that optional fields are not reset. This builds on the schema without redundancy.

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 states 'Met a jour une demande d absence existante' (Updates an existing absence request), clearly identifying the action (update) and resource (absence). 'Seuls les champs fournis sont modifies' further specifies partial update semantics, distinguishing it from create/delete operations.

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 implies this tool is for modifying an already-existing absence, and that only provided fields are changed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like create or delete, but the 'existing' qualifier gives clear context for when to use it.

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