Modifier un(e) candidat

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

The description adds that only provided fields are modified (partial update) and returns the updated data. Annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint, but the partial update context is valuable beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose, behavior, and return. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description mentions return of updated data. However, it lacks error handling, permissions, or edge cases. Sufficient for a simple update but not fully comprehensive.

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% (though minimal labels). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Met à jour' and the resource 'un(e) candidat existant(e)'. It distinguishes from create/delete by being specific to updates, but does not explicitly differentiate from other candidate tools like get or search.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create, delete). No mention of prerequisites or conditions. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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