Modifier un positionnement

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavior beyond these: 'Seuls les champs fournis sont modifiés' indicates a partial update, and it explains how empty strings on startDate/endDate clear those fields. It also explains the folding of stateReasonTypeOf/stateReasonDetail into a nested stateReason object. 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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a bulleted args list, and a returns note. It is concise but not overly terse. The args list somewhat duplicates schema descriptions, but the added grouping of stateReason fields and the clearing behavior justify its 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?

Given the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be detailed) and annotations, the description covers the key behaviors: partial update, field clearing, max comment length, and stateReason nesting. It does not mention error cases or prerequisites, but for a simple update with good schema/annotation support, it is sufficiently complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that stateReasonTypeOf and stateReasonDetail are combined into stateReason {typeOf, detail}, and that empty date strings are meaningful for clearing values. This goes beyond the individual property descriptions.

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 function: 'Met à jour un positionnement existant dans BoondManager' with the specific PUT endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools (create/delete) by emphasizing 'existant' and by describing a partial update of fields.

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 when to use this tool (when updating an existing positioning) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like boond_positionings_create or boond_positionings_delete. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided beyond the implied scope of updating an existing record.

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