Modifier une facture fournisseur

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

The description clearly discloses partial-update semantics: only provided fields are written and others are left unchanged. It also warns that array fields are replaced, not merged, and mentions the rights-check step before attempting the operation. These behaviors go beyond what the annotations alone 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 well-structured with clear sections ('Quand', 'Plutôt que', bullet points for behavior, 'Returns'). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence adds useful guidance without unnecessary padding.

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 10 parameters, the description covers when to use it, what it does, partial-update behavior, array-field caveats, rights checking, and the return value. The schema documents each parameter, and an output schema exists, so no critical 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable parameter-level semantics by stating that only provided fields are written, which clarifies how optional parameters behave. It also warns about array replacement behavior, though no array fields appear in 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 uses a specific verb ('Met à jour') and resource ('facture fournisseur existant(e)') and identifies the record by ID. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling `boond_provider_invoices_create` by stating it is for existing records.

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 states when to use the tool ('pour modifier quelques champs d'un enregistrement déjà en base') and points to the alternative create tool when the record does not exist. It also advises checking `boond_rights_get` to avoid a 403, which gives the agent actionable guidance.

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