Modifier un(e) opportunité

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (update operation), destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'Seuls les champs fournis sont modifiés', which clarifies partial update behavior. No additional behaviors (e.g., permissions, error handling) are disclosed, but annotations cover the key safety profile.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and key behavior. Every sentence adds value: first sentence states action and context, second clarifies update behavior. No redundant information.

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?

With an output schema present (not shown but flagged), return values are documented. The description covers the essential behavior for an update tool. It could mention error handling (e.g., what happens if id is invalid), but for a standard CRUD tool, it is adequate.

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?

All 16 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema already defines them. The description adds the partial update semantic ('Seuls les champs fournis sont modifiés'), which is not explicit in the schema. This provides meaningful context for how parameters are applied.

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 opportunity in BoondManager, with a specific verb ('Met à jour') and resource ('opportunité'). It distinguishes from siblings like create, delete, get, and search by focusing on update. It also adds the scope 'Seuls les champs fournis sont modifiés', indicating partial update.

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 an existing opportunity, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like create or delete. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. Given sibling tools like boond_opportunities_create and boond_opportunities_delete, the context is clear but not explicitly guided.

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