Modifier un(e) facture

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait that only provided fields are modified (partial update), which goes beyond the annotations. Given that annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, the description adds value by explaining update semantics and return data, though it doesn't mention permissions or array field handling.

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 concise and well-structured: one sentence for purpose and behavior, one sentence for return value. No redundant information or unnecessary length.

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 mutating tool with 10 parameters, the description adequately covers the essential aspects: it states the update behavior, partial-update semantics, and return type. The schema covers all parameters, and annotations handle safety profile. It doesn't explain array field nuances but that's beyond typical description scope.

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%, so all 10 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds general awareness that only provided fields are updated but doesn't elaborate on specific parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Met à jour' - updates) and resource ('facture existante' - existing invoice). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and search by explicitly targeting updates. The addition 'dans BoondManager' provides system context.

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 phrase 'Seuls les champs fournis sont modifiés' gives clear context about partial-update semantics, which is essential for proper usage. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the tool name and sibling list make it evident when to use this update tool versus create/get/delete.

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