Modifier les mentions légales

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that all body fields are optional ('tous facultatifs'), indicating partial updates, and specifies the HTTP method (PATCH). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond 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 a single line broken into three clear segments: purpose, field source/optionality, and HTTP endpoint. It front-loads the action and contains no filler, making it highly efficient.

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 update tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides the essential context: the action, the field source, optionality, and the HTTP method. It does not describe the response format (no output schema), but the absence is not critical given the tool's simplicity and the reference to getLegalNotice for field shapes.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (siteId as 'ID site encodé (hashid)' and body listing many field names). The description adds that these fields come from getLegalNotice and are all optional, which clarifies the expected body structure and update semantics beyond the schema's static field list.

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 the verb 'Modifier' and the resource 'mentions légales', making the tool's purpose explicit. It also references the fields of getLegalNotice, distinguishing this update operation from its read counterpart and other update tools like updateSiteSettings. The HTTP method and path add precision.

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 usage by mentioning 'Champs de getLegalNotice', suggesting one might fetch first, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It names no sibling alternatives or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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