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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context: the deletion does not erase message history, and execution must follow an explicit human approval obtained via the preview step. It stops short of saying whether the deleted rule can be recovered, which matters for a destructive, non-idempotent operation.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the first states the action and its data consequence, the second states the two-step confirmation flow. The most consequential fact (preview vs execute) is placed where it will be read before invocation.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety protocol and the side effect on history, which are the two things an agent could not derive from structured fields. It leaves open what the preview actually contains and whether the rule can be restored, minor but real 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the default and the consent workflow. The description restates the confirmer semantics without adding syntax or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb with a specific resource ('Arrête et supprime un message récurrent') and clarifies the scope of the deletion by noting that already-sent messages remain in history. It does not explicitly contrast with the close sibling 'suspendre_message_recurrent', so an agent must infer that this is permanent removal rather than a pause, but the verb 'supprime' carries that distinction.

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 clearly specifies the operational protocol: confirmer=false returns a preview, confirmer=true executes, and execution requires the person's explicit consent first. What is missing is guidance on when to prefer this tool over 'suspendre_message_recurrent' or 'modifier_message_recurrent', which is the main ambiguity among siblings.

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