Modifier un positionnement

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds valuable behavioral details: partial-update semantics ('Seuls les champs fournis sont modifiés') and the flattening of stateReasonTypeOf/stateReasonDetail into a nested stateReason object. It doesn't contradict the annotations and meaningfully expands on what the structured data alone would convey.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: main action, partial-update behavior, when/alternative usage, and return value. While it's slightly more verbose than strictly necessary, the structure is front-loaded and scannable, with no filler or redundancy.

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 7-parameter update tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the endpoint, when to use it, the alternative, the partial-update behavior, and the return value. It doesn't mention error conditions or idempotency implications, but these are secondary given the schema and annotations already present.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter semantics by explicitly explaining how stateReasonTypeOf and stateReasonDetail combine into a single nested stateReason object, and it reinforces that only provided fields are modified, which clarifies how optional parameters behave in an update 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Met à jour un positionnement existant') and includes the exact endpoint, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It further distinguishes itself from the sibling boond_positionings_create by explicitly naming the alternative, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting 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?

The description provides clear 'Quand' conditions (advancing a positioning's state through proposed → retained → refused) and explicit 'Plutôt que' guidance to use boond_positionings_create when the positioning doesn't exist yet. This gives both when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions, which is ideal.

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