Modifier un(e) société

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent write operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that only provided fields are modified and returns the updated company data, which goes beyond what the annotations convey. 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 extremely concise, with three short segments: purpose, partial update behavior, and return value. Every sentence earns its place, and the critical information is front-loaded. No fluff or 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and robust annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the operation type, the partial update semantics, and the return value. It does not mention error handling or specific prerequisites, but these are not essential for an update tool with a well-documented schema and safety hints.

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% and all parameters have descriptions. The description adds meaningful semantic context by explaining that the tool performs a partial update (only supplied fields are changed), which helps the agent understand that optional parameters are truly optional and that omitting them preserves existing values. This enriches the parameter understanding beyond raw schema labels.

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 uses the specific verb 'Met à jour' (updates) with the resource 'société existante' (existing company), clearly distinguishing it from create/delete/get tools. It also adds the key behavior that only provided fields are modified, further clarifying its purpose as a partial update tool.

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 clear context that this tool is for updating an existing company, implying it is not for creation or deletion. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like boond_companies_create or boond_companies_delete, nor does it state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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