Modifier une référence (expérience pro)

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

Discloses merge semantics (only provided fields replace, other fields and references stay intact), return behavior (confirmation and republished technical dossier), and error behavior for an unknown referenceId. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false.

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?

Four short sections with no filler: the most important merge semantics come first, followed by usage, example, and return/error behavior. Every sentence contributes to correct tool invocation.

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 11-parameter update endpoint with no output schema, the description covers selection, partial-update behavior, side effects, and error signaling. No important calling decision is left unaddressed.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining partial-update semantics and illustrating a realistic subset of fields (startMonth/startYear/endMonth/endYear) that can be updated without touching others.

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?

States clearly that it updates an existing reference via read-modify-write on /resources/{id}/technical-data, and differentiates itself from boond_resources_reference_create. The verb, target resource, and merge behavior are all explicit.

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?

Gives an explicit 'Quand' and 'Plutôt que' section naming boond_resources_reference_create as the alternative, plus a concrete use case for partial date updates. An agent can confidently decide when to use this tool versus its siblings.

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