Modifier les coordonnées de l'entreprise

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

The annotations already indicate that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds value by specifying PATCH semantics and stating that all getCompanyInfo fields are optional, which conveys a partial-update behavior beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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 a single compact sentence containing the action, the acceptable fields, optionality, and the HTTP endpoint. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter PATCH tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it gives the purpose, source of fields, optionality, and method. A sentence about the response shape would be a minor improvement but is not necessary for correct invocation.

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 schema already lists the body field names, but the description adds meaning by saying these are exactly the fields of getCompanyInfo and that all are optional. This helps an agent construct a valid partial body and tells it where to find the authoritative field definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Modifier les coordonnées de l'entreprise', and clarifies the body contract by referring to the fields of getCompanyInfo. Together with the PATCH endpoint, this makes the operation unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling update tools that target other resources.

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?

It clearly states that this tool modifies company information and that its fields come from getCompanyInfo, all optional. It does not explicitly name excluded alternatives, but there is no competing sibling for updating company info, so the usage context is clear enough.

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