Modifier une action

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

The description reveals important behavioral traits not covered by annotations: partial PUT semantics, preservation of relations (dependsOn, positioning, calendar sync), and that text replaces existing content rather than appending. It also warns against a destructive alternative. This is substantial added context beyond the structured fields.

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 well-structured with a concise summary, a warning note, a clear parameter list, and a return statement. It is appropriately sized for six parameters and every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.

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?

With a full input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description still adds key operational context (partial update, no relations sent, calendar preservation) that structured data does not convey. The tool is fully specified and the description rounds out the behavioral story.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including typeOf's dictionary reference and date formats. The description restates the parameter list and adds the general partial-update note, but does not provide significant new meaning per parameter beyond what the schema already offers.

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 'Met à jour une action existante' (updates an existing action) in BoondManager, specifying it is a partial PUT where only provided fields are modified. This distinguishes it from create/delete tools and explicitly names the target resource.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: it is 'Idéal pour ajouter un compte-rendu sans casser l'agenda' and contrasts directly with 'delete + recreate' which would delete the calendar event. It also explains that no relations are sent, preserving dependencies and scheduling, making the usage context clear.

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