Modifier un(e) ressource

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context by stating 'Seuls les champs fournis sont modifiés' (partial update) and that it returns the updated resource data. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences plus a 'Returns' line. It front-loads the core purpose and partial-update behavior, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 flat update tool with 10 parameters fully described in the schema, an output schema, and good annotations, the description is complete. It conveys the essential behavior (partial update, returns updated data) without needing to explain every field or return value since those are already structured.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The description itself does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 un(e) ressource existant(e)' (Updates an existing resource), which identifies both the action (update) and the resource (resource). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_resources_create, boond_resources_delete, and boond_resources_get.

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 implies it is for modifying existing resources ('existant(e)') and notes that only provided fields are modified, giving clear context on when it applies. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses the 'alternatives' criterion for a 5.

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