Modifier un(e) bon de commande

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

Annotations indicate the tool is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the key behavioral detail that only provided fields are updated, which is crucial for understanding the tool's effect. It also discloses the return value. No contradictions 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 two sentences, with the main action front-loaded. It includes a clear 'Returns:' line for output. No redundant information, and every sentence adds value.

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 an update tool with 10 parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate: it explains the operation, partial update semantics, and return value. It does not explicitly note that only 'id' is required, but the schema shows this. The description is slightly minimal but complete given the structured metadata available.

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 10 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already documents each field. The description does not add per-parameter details beyond the general patch behavior statement. This does not compensate further, but the schema coverage justifies a baseline of 3.

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 it updates an existing purchase order (bon de commande) in BoondManager. The verb 'Met à jour' and resource 'bon de commande existant' are specific, and 'Seuls les champs fournis sont modifiés' adds detail on partial update semantics. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, or search.

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 order, with 'existant(e)' indicating it is not for creation. The partial update note ('Seuls les champs fournis sont modifiés') provides practical guidance on how to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, relying on tool names and context to differentiate.

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