Mettre à jour les données administratives d'un candidat

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds important operational context: only supplied fields are sent, personal data should only come from candidate-provided sources, and the return includes confirmation plus any fields not found by the API. These details go well beyond the structured annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into clear usage and behavior sections. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying scope, routing, or data-handling constraints.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing context: partial-update semantics, personal-data caution, and return shape. Combined with rich schema coverage and safety annotations, an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including the nested desiredSalary range and the desiredContract dictionary ID. The description reinforces what fields belong to the administrative tab and clarifies partial-update behavior, but adds little parameter-specific syntax beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: updating a candidate's administrative tab, and enumerates the exact fields covered (nationality, desired salary, current salary, desired contract, comments). It explicitly distinguishes itself from boond_candidates_technical_data_update, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 provides explicit 'Quand' guidance for when to use the tool and a 'Plutôt que' section naming the alternative tool for skills and career history. This is exactly the when-to-use / when-not-to-use routing information an agent needs.

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