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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations by disclosing side effects: closed days don't count toward client absence, mis-declared closures make regulars look 'perdus de vue' and trigger follow-ups, and prevenir_clients sends one message per day to all clients (counting as the day's message). The preview-vs-commit semantics are also spelled out.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by effect, optional notification, and confirm flow in a logical order. The prose is dense but each sentence carries useful information with little waste.

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 6-parameter mutation with side effects and no output schema, the description covers the range, the notification option, and the confirm flow adequately, and annotations already flag the destructive profile. Minor gaps remain around reversibility/undo and how it relates to the closure-listing siblings.

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 coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by framing du/au as an inclusive range, clarifying that prevenir_clients requires texte and follows envoyer_message rules, and explaining confirmer's preview-vs-execute behavior in 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?

States a specific verb (Ajoute) and resource (période de fermeture / congés) with clear scope (premier au dernier jour inclus) and even explains the downstream effect on client absence tracking. It is very clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly names sibling tools (lister_fermetures, supprimer_conges, regler_jours_fermes) to differentiate the operation.

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?

Explains the optional notification path (prevenir_clients=true with texte) and the two-step preview/confirm workflow ('confirmer=false rend un aperçu ; confirmer=true enregistre... après accord explicite de la personne'). However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance or routing versus the closure-management siblings.

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