Modifier un regroupement de prestations

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses partial-update semantics: only supplied fields are written and others are left in place. It also warns that array fields are replaced rather than merged, which is exactly the kind of side-effect an agent needs to know. The return value is also disclosed: confirmation and the updated record.

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 short, sectioned, and front-loaded. The 'Quand', 'Plutôt que', and bulleted warnings each add non-redundant information, and there is no filler.

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 with an extensive input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential contextual points: existing record + ID, when to prefer create, partial-update behavior, array replacement, and the response shape. No critical calling information 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to re-document each parameter. It still adds parameter-level meaning by stating that partial updates apply to all supplied fields and that array-typed parameters are overwritten wholesale rather than merged. This goes beyond the schema, though individual parameters are not given extra context.

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 precise action: 'Met à jour un(e) regroupement de prestations existant(e), identifié(e) par son ID' (updates an existing group identified by ID). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling create tool by saying it modifies an already-stored record rather than creating 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?

It has an explicit 'Quand' section saying to use it to modify a few fields of an existing record, and an explicit 'Plutôt que' section directing agents to boond_groupments_create when the record does not exist yet. This gives a clear selection rule relative to the relevant sibling.

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