Modifier une référence (expérience pro)

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

The description adds crucial behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the endpoint /resources/{id}/technical-data, explains that only explicitly provided fields replace the target reference, and assures that other fields and references remain intact. This goes well beyond the basic safety hints (idempotent, non-destructive) and clarifies side effects.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, the first states the core behavior and partial update semantics, the second gives a typical use case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 partial update tool with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, update semantics, and a sample use case, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. While it doesn't describe return values, that is not required given the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions specific parameters (startMonth/startYear/endMonth/endYear) and affected fields in the use case, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. The schema already documents all parameters, so the description's contribution is marginal.

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 'met à jour une référence existante' (updates an existing reference), with a specific endpoint and partial-update semantics. It distinguishes itself from sibling create/delete tools by focusing on update behavior and the read-modify-write nature.

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 a typical use case (completing date fields without touching other fields), which implies when to use this partial update tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage compared to create/delete or full technical-data update.

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