Modifier une action

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

Beyond annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals that relations and calendar sync are preserved, that text replaces existing content, and that only supplied fields are modified. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose and a critical behavioral note, followed by a structured parameter list and a simple return statement. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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?

Given the moderate complexity, full schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavioral nuances, parameter details, and return value. It provides a complete mental model for the agent.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description's Args section largely duplicates the schema, adding no new per-parameter information beyond reinforcing the partial update concept.

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 tool updates an existing action in BoondManager with partial PUT semantics. It distinguishes from siblings like delete+recreate by emphasizing preservation of calendar events, and implies it's for existing actions (not create).

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 explicitly recommends this tool for adding an account-rendu without breaking the agenda, contrasting with delete+recreate. It implies use for existing actions, but does not explicitly state when to use create instead.

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