Modifier une action

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds important behavioral detail: only provided fields are modified, no relations are sent, existing dependsOn/positioning/calendar sync is preserved, and `text` replaces rather than appends. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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 dense but efficient: main action, partial-PUT semantics, alternative, safety warning, use case, and return value, all in a compact, well-organized structure. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an update tool, the description is complete enough: it covers the operation type, the scope of changes, the behavioral guarantees about relations, the alternative to create, and the return value. The annotations and schema cover the rest.

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 already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to re-explain them. It adds value by stating that omitted relation fields are preserved and that `text` is a replacement operation, which gives the agent a clearer mental model of partial updates.

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 precise verb and resource: "Met à jour une action existante dans BoondManager" and clarifies the partial-PUT semantics. It also explicitly differentiates itself from `boond_actions_create`, making the boundary between update and create obvious.

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 directly tells the agent when not to use this tool: "Plutôt que : `boond_actions_create` si l'action n'existe pas encore." It also contrasts the update with delete + recreate, explaining that update is the safe path when preserving calendar/agenda data matters.

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