Modifier un(e) opportunité

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

Beyond annotations, the description adds key behavioral detail: partial update ('Seuls les champs fournis sont modifiés') and indicates the return value ('Données mises à jour'). These are not captured in the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and provide useful context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then a clear partial-update note and returns line. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 16 parameters, the description is minimal but sufficient because the schema carries detailed parameter semantics and the annotations cover safety. The partial-update behavior and return value are the missing contextual pieces, and they are provided. It could mention typical usage patterns but is not incomplete.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with detailed descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the general partial-update note, which applies to all parameters equally.

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 states 'Met à jour un(e) opportunité existant(e) dans BoondManager' with a specific verb (update) and resource (existing opportunity), clearly distinguishing it from create, delete, get, and search sibling tools.

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 modifying an existing opportunity ('existant(e)') but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like create or delete, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is implied, not explicit.

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