Modifier un(e) candidat

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds: 'Seuls les champs fournis sont modifiés', clarifying partial update behavior, and 'Returns: Données mises à jour du/de la candidat', specifying the return value. This adds value beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose and partial update behavior, second describes return value.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters, 1 required, with full schema coverage and output schema present. The description explains the partial update mechanism and return data, making it complete for a straightforward update tool. No additional context is needed.

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 descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add extra meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. The partial update note is a general behavioral statement, not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Met à jour un(e) candidat existant(e) dans BoondManager' with a specific verb (update) and resource (candidate). The title 'Modifier un(e) candidat' reinforces the purpose. Among sibling tools, this distinguishes itself from boond_candidates_create, boond_candidates_get, etc.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for updating candidate information but provides no exclusions or comparisons to sibling candidate tools such as boond_candidates_create or boond_candidates_update? (no other update variant). Lack of explicit guidance lowers the score.

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