Modifier une action

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it's a partial PUT ('PUT partiel, seuls les champs fournis sont modifiés'), it does not send relations and preserves dependsOn/positioning/calendar sync, and it warns that text replaces existing content rather than appending. This gives the agent crucial insight into side effects. No contradiction 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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then usage guidance, a behavioral warning, and an args list. Every sentence contributes meaning; there is no fluff. The front-loading of the primary action and the sibling distinction makes it easy to scan quickly.

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 an update tool with a rich schema and annotations, the description is complete. It covers the operation type, idempotent partial update behavior, preservation of relationships, and parameter semantics. The 'Returns: L'action mise à jour' line, combined with the stated output schema, ensures the agent knows what to expect. Nothing essential is missing.

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% (all six parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'text' replaces existing content (not adds), specifying the date format with a concrete example (2026-06-05T10:00:00+0200), and noting typeOf uses the dictionary setting.action.*. These details go beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Met à jour une action existante dans BoondManager' (updates an existing action). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling boond_actions_create by noting 'Plutôt que : boond_actions_create si l'action n'existe pas encore' (rather than create if the action doesn't exist yet). This leaves no ambiguity about the action's role.

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 provides direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It names boond_actions_create as the correct choice when the action doesn't exist, and contrasts with delete+recreate, explaining why update is preferable for preserving calendar sync. This is explicit and actionable.

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