Modifier un(e) paiement

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: partial update semantics (only provided fields written), array fields are replaced not merged, and the suggestion to pre-check rights via 'boond_rights_get'. It does not contradict any annotation and provides useful operational context.

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 tight and well-structured, with a clear opening, a 'Quand'/'Plutôt que' pair, and bullet points for key behaviors. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the most important information (update an existing payment) is front-loaded. No redundant 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?

For a tool with 14 parameters, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential operational aspects: when to use, partial update behavior, array handling, permission pre-check, and return value. It is sufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly without additional context.

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 provides 100% coverage with per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds general semantics about partial updates and array replacement, but does not deepen understanding of any specific parameter beyond what the schema states. No extra parameter-specific meaning is added.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Met à jour un(e) paiement existant(e)' (updates an existing payment), and clearly distinguishes itself from the create tool by stating when to use each. The purpose is unambiguous and leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('pour modifier quelques champs d'un enregistrement déjà en base') and contrasts it with the alternative 'boond_payments_create' when the record doesn't exist. It also recommends checking 'boond_rights_get' to avoid 403 errors, giving the agent actionable routing guidance.

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