Mettre à jour le dossier technique d'une ressource

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

The description goes far beyond annotations by detailing exact merge semantics per field (skills concatenation, key-based addition for tools/languages, fill-only-if-empty for scalar fields), replace semantics, and the behavior of omitted fields. This is especially valuable given the idempotentHint annotation, as it explains how idempotency is achieved.

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 appropriately structured with clear section breaks for merge/replace modes, bullet points for fields, and a closing note on exclusions. Despite its length, every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 12-parameter schema, two modes, and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers all field behaviors, mode differences, edge cases (omitted fields), and exclusions. An agent can confidently invoke this tool correctly without further information.

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?

While the schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, the description adds essential context by explaining how each parameter behaves under different modes (merge vs replace). This mode-dependent behavior is not inferable from the schema alone, making the description a critical complement.

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 updates a resource's technical file (DT) and enumerates the specific field categories (competences, outils, langues, expertises, formations, diplomes, experience). It distinguishes itself by explicitly excluding professional references and pointing to dedicated reference tools.

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 explicit usage guidance: it recommends 'merge' mode for automation, explains when to use 'replace' vs 'merge', and gives a direct alternative ('utiliser boond_resources_reference_{create|update|delete}') for reference management. It also clarifies that omitted fields are never reset, helping agents decide what to include.

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