Mettre à jour le dossier technique d'une ressource

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, and the description supports this by explaining merge mode enriches without overwriting. It transparently describes that only explicitly provided fields are sent to the API, preventing unintended resets. No contradiction with 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?

Well-structured with clear sections for purpose, merge mode details, and important notes. Slightly wordy but front-loaded with main purpose. Could trim some redundancy (e.g., repeating mode descriptions).

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 complexity (12 parameters, detailed merge behavior), the description covers most aspects comprehensively. However, it omits the return value/output, which might be helpful for an agent to understand what the tool returns. Otherwise, it is thorough.

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%, and the description adds significant behavioral context beyond the schema: e.g., for 'skills' it concatenates missing ones, for 'tools' and 'languages' it adds new entries while preserving existing levels, and for 'title' it only fills if empty. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 it updates the technical dossier ('dossier technique') of a resource, listing specific fields (skills, tools, languages, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating that professional experiences are not handled here, directing to boond_resources_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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode: 'merge' (default, recommended for automation) and 'replace'. It details behavior per field and clarifies that omitted fields remain untouched. Also clearly separates this tool from experience management tools.

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