Modifier un(e) produit

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

The description adds the behavioral detail 'Seuls les champs fournis sont modifiés' (only provided fields are modified), which is not covered by annotations that already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This is useful, but no further behavioral context (e.g., error cases, permissions) is given.

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 long with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and key behavior, and the second states the return value. Excellent conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (6 optional fields, 1 required id), annotations cover safety, and output schema exists, the description provides the essential purpose and partial-update behavior. It lacks mention of error handling or validation, but the core information is complete enough for typical use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each parameter individually. The description adds only the overall update behavior (sparse update) but no per-parameter enhancements, so it meets the 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 the verb 'Met à jour' (update) and the resource 'produit existant(e)', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The sibling set includes create, delete, get, and search, so this tool is well-differentiated.

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 implicitly indicates usage for updating an existing product, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like boond_products_create or boond_products_delete. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, which is a gap given the number of product-related siblings.

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