Modifier une référence (expérience pro)

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

The description elaborates on the idempotent and non-destructive nature hinted by annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), explaining that only explicitly provided fields are updated. It also warns about the API rejecting leading zeros for month values, adding valuable behavioral context beyond 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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose. The second paragraph provides a use-case example without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With 11 parameters (most optional), 2 required, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: partial update, idempotency, and typical usage. It could optionally describe return value but is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 rich descriptions for each parameter. The description adds some value by highlighting the typical use case of updating startMonth/startYear/endMonth/endYear and reiterating the partial update behavior. However, it does not significantly extend beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 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 'Met à jour une référence existante' (updates an existing reference), using a specific verb and resource. It is well-differentiated from sibling tools like boond_resources_reference_create and boond_resources_reference_delete, which handle creation and deletion respectively.

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 explains read-modify-write behavior and partial update semantics: only provided fields replace, others remain intact. It provides a concrete use case for updating date fields without affecting other fields. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or alternatives, it offers clear context for appropriate usage.

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