Update Property Work

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint: true. The description adds that the amount is in euros and that annual depreciation is automatically recalculated if amount or duration change, which is behavioral info beyond annotations. No contradiction detected.

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?

Three concise sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: what the tool does, partial update behavior, currency unit, and automatic recalculation. No wasted words.

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?

Despite 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects (partial update, auto-recalculation). It does not explain return value or error conditions, but given idempotentHint and typical mutation patterns, it is fairly complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'amount' (in euros) and 'duration_years' (triggers auto-recalculation). However, other parameters like work_id, tva_rate, work_date, description, is_dedicated are not described, leaving gaps.

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 poste de travaux immobiliers existant' (updates an existing property work item) and specifies it's a partial update (only provided fields modified). This distinguishes it from create and delete siblings.

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 explicitly says only provided fields are modified (partial update), implying it is used for updating existing works rather than creating new ones. It does not name alternatives but the context with sibling tools (create_property_work, delete_property_work) provides sufficient differentiation.

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