Modifier un bon de commande

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

Annotations idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false are present. The description adds the important detail that only provided fields are modified (patch behavior), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the action and key behavior. No extraneous 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?

For a simple patch update tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It does not mention error handling or authorization, but those are typical and the low complexity makes this sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description reinforces the partial update behavior but adds no new information beyond what schema provides. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 (verb+resource) and notes that only provided fields are modified. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and 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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage for updating existing orders but lacks context on when not to use or mention of related tools like boond_orders_create.

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