Modifier un(e) contrat

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: partial update semantics, array fields being replaced rather than merged, and the recommendation to verify rights first. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to know and are not derivable from the annotations alone.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then usage context, then key behavioral warnings, then return value. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety characteristics, the description provides everything an agent needs: what the tool does, when to use it, partial update behavior, array replacement caveat, rights-check guidance, and what it returns. No critical context is missing.

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 has 100% description coverage, with each parameter already documented including types, formats, and dictionary references. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level semantics, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Met à jour un(e) contrat existant(e), identifié(e) par son ID.' It clearly identifies the resource (contracts) and the operation (update), and distinguishes itself from boond_contracts_create by explaining the difference between updating an existing record and creating a new one.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('pour modifier quelques champs d'un enregistrement déjà en base') and names the alternative (boond_contracts_create) with the condition that should route to it instead. It also adds a practical precondition: checking boond_rights_get before attempting the update to avoid a 403.

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