Modifier un(e) société

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and not destructive. The description adds value by clarifying that only provided fields are modified (partial update), which is beyond the annotation hints. 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 consists of two short, focused sentences. The first states the action, and the second explains the partial update behavior and return value. No unnecessary 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 the annotations and rich schema (10 described parameters), the description covers the core behavior: updating an existing company, partial updates, and returning updated data. It lacks explicit mention of permissions or error handling, but output is described.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 10 parameters. The description adds the semantic context that 'only provided fields are modified,' which is not apparent from the schema alone. This enhances parameter understanding.

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 action: 'Met à jour un(e) société existant(e)' (updates an existing company). It specifies the resource ('société') and the verb ('met à jour'). The sibling tools include create and delete, so this update tool is well-distinguished.

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 implies when to use the tool (to update an existing company) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create, search, or delete. No guidance on when not to use or alternatives is provided.

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