Modifier une absence

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

The description discloses beyond the annotations: it states partial-update semantics and the `absencesPeriods` exception where the provided array replaces existing periods. It also states the return, which is useful because there is no output schema. The only limiting factor is that it does not address permissions, validation, or rate limits, but the annotations already cover idempotency and non-read-only, so this is a strong-but-not-complete disclosure.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose, when to use, what not to use, partial-update behavior, notable exception, and return value. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure front-loads the most relevant information.

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 5-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description explains purpose, usage, return value, partial update, and the replacement exception. It is not fully complete because `absencesPeriods` is described as a replaceable field but is absent from the input schema, and the `state` parameter receives no meaningful operational detail. These gaps make the definition serviceable but not fully reliable.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description does add some value by mapping the update use case to dates, comment, and reason, and by clarifying partial update behavior. However, it does not explain the `state` parameter's possible values, and it mentions `absencesPeriods` although that field is not present in the input schema, which can confuse an agent.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Met à jour une demande d'absence existante, identifiée par son ID.' It also differentiates the tool from the sibling `boond_absences_create` by explicitly pointing to create as the 'Plutôt que' alternative. An agent can immediately tell what this tool updates and how it differs from creating an absence.

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 gives explicit 'Quand' guidance: use the tool to correct dates, the reason, or the comment of an already-submitted request. It also says 'Plutôt que : boond_absences_create si la demande n'existe pas encore,' which is a concrete alternative and exclusion. This is model usage clarity with a named sibling.

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