Modifier un(e) produit

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful context about partial update behavior and states that updated data is returned. This complements the annotations without contradicting them, though it omits details like validation or permission requirements.

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 just two sentences plus a returns clause, with no filler. It is front-loaded and every sentence serves a purpose: what it does, how it behaves, and what it returns.

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 update tool with complete schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, partial-update behavior, and return value. It is adequate, though it could be slightly more complete by mentioning error cases or prerequisites like the ID needing to exist.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a valuable cross-cutting semantic: only provided fields are modified, clarifying that all parameters except id are optional and that omitted fields remain unchanged. This goes beyond the schema's per-field 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 'Met à jour un(e) produit existant(e) dans BoondManager' – a specific verb ('Met à jour'), the resource ('produit existant'), and the system ('BoondManager'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, search, or get for the same entity.

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 provides clear context for when to use it (updating an existing product) and includes the valuable partial-update guidance 'Seuls les champs fournis sont modifiés'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, falling just short of a 5.

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