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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: it discloses that this replaces the full weekly list, affects absence/lost-client tracking, optionally triggers a mass notification (governed by envoyer_message rules, one message/day), and that confirmer=true executes/sends. This meaningfully expands on destructiveHint and openWorldHint.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and constraints. Slightly wordy with the 'habitués perdus de vue' explanation, but that sentence earns its place by justifying the absence-tracking effect. No critical 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 destructive, open-world mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the preview/confirm safety workflow, side effects, and cross-parameter coupling. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning: texte only applies when prevenir_clients=true, prevenir_clients counts as the day's message, and confirmer separates preview from execution. These interactions exceed the individual field descriptions.

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 (remplace/règle) and resource (les jours fermés chaque semaine) with a concrete example. It is clearly distinguishable from lister_fermetures (which lists) by the explicit 'remplace' (replaces) semantics.

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 preview-then-confirm workflow clearly ('confirmer=false rend un aperçu ; confirmer=true enregistre... après accord explicite de la personne') and when notification applies. However it never explicitly names a sibling as an alternative (e.g. lister_fermetures to view current closures), leaving that inference to the agent.

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