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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that nothing is written without confirmation, that an action_id is returned, and that it expires in 10 minutes. It omits auth/permission requirements and expiry-failure behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the write/consent constraint, with no filler. Efficient and readable.

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 4-param mutation with no output schema, it covers the essential flow (preconditions, returned token, confirmation gate). The undocumented p一篇renom/message fields and lack of auth context are the remaining gaps.

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 0% so the description must compensate; it usefully clarifies that consent must be true (beyond the schema's default false) and that email is required. However prenom and message are left entirely undocumented, so only half the parameters gain meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (prepare a callback request) and clarifies the write is consented, making the two-step nature explicit. It is distinguishable from generic siblings, though it does not name confirmer_action/annuler_action which are clearly the follow-on tools.

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?

Gives clear preconditions (email AND consent=true required) and states the output must be user-confirmed, which is effectively the when-to-use contract. It stops short of naming confirmer_action as the required next step.

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