Modifier un(e) contact

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

Annotations already disclose idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds the crucial partial-update behavior, explaining that only supplied fields are changed—valuable beyond the annotations. It also states the return value, though that is redundant given the output schema, but does not contradict any 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 exceptionally concise: two sentences cover the action and a key behavioral nuance, plus a return-value note. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, making it easy to parse 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 a simple update tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys the core behavior (update existing contact, partial update) and return type. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but these are typically implied by the schema and context, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100%), but the global statement 'Seuls les champs fournis sont modifiés' adds important semantics for optional parameters, clarifying that omitted fields are left unchanged. This goes beyond the individual schema descriptions, which are just field 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 clearly states the tool updates an existing contact in BoondManager, using the specific verb 'Met à jour' and resource 'contact'. The additional note that only provided fields are modified further clarifies the tool's exact scope, distinguishing it from create or delete siblings.

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 usage for updating existing contacts, and the partial-update statement ('Seuls les champs fournis sont modifiés') gives clear guidance on how to call the tool (send only the fields to change). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., create/delete) or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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