Mettre à jour l'état d'une action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (write operation), destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds a key behavioral detail not in annotations: setting status to 'fait' registers the action in the site's history (100-09-002). This is a meaningful side-effect that helps the agent anticipate consequences. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra context beyond the structured metadata.

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 compact, roughly three clauses separated by em-dashes. It front-loads the main purpose and includes a concrete example of a side-effect. However, the inclusion of '100-09-002' is cryptic and may be an internal code that adds noise without clear explanation. Overall, it is concise but could be more polished in structure.

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 tool with 6 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the core purpose and the 'fait' side-effect but does not describe the expected response, error conditions, or the semantics of optional parameters like comment and due_date. An agent would need to infer behavior from the schema alone, which is insufficient for a reliable call.

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 only 17% (only siteId has a description). The description compensates by explaining that 'cle' is the key from GET …/audit/actions, which is useful. However, it does not add meaning for the other parameters (owner, comment, due_date) beyond what the schema provides. Status is an enum, so its meaning is inherent, but the description fails to clarify the optional fields or their formats, leaving significant gaps in 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 states the exact purpose: 'Mettre à jour l'état d'une action' (update the status of an action), identifies the resource (audit action) and the verb (update), and even specifies the endpoint (PATCH /sites/{siteId}/audit/actions/{cle}). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like listAuditActions by implying a write operation on a specific action, and the mention of the key from GET …/audit/actions further clarifies the target resource.

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 clear usage context: it updates the status of an audit action and requires the key ('clé') obtained from GET …/audit/actions. This implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (when modifying an audit action status) without explicit alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to distinguish from read-only tools.

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