Modifier un(e) projet

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about partial update semantics (only supplied fields are modified) and states that updated data is returned, going beyond the structured hints.

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 short sentences, front-loads the action, and includes a concise return statement. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 seven documented parameters, a non-required patch behavior, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It would benefit from an explicit alternative/use-case statement but is not incomplete.

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% and every parameter has a description, so the schema carries most of the semantic weight. The description reinforces that only provided fields are modified, which applies to all parameters, but adds no parameter-specific meaning.

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 uses the specific verb 'Met à jour' and identifies the resource as 'un(e) projet existant(e) dans BoondManager', making the operation unmistakable. It also notes that only provided fields are changed, which further distinguishes it from create/delete siblings.

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 this tool is for modifying existing projects and not for creation ('existant(e)'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as boond_projects_create. It does provide clear partial-update guidance with 'Seuls les champs fournis sont modifiés'.

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