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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds important behavior: active messages stop sending until resumed, and confirmer=false returns a preview while confirmer=true executes only after explicit human approval.

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 definition is two compact sentences, with the core effect and confirmation workflow front-loaded and no wasted wording.

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 tool with complete schema descriptions and annotations covering safety traits, the description supplies enough behavioral context to call it correctly, including the required preview-and-consent sequence.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the confirmer preview/execute workflow but adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema descriptions already provide.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Met en pause un message récurrent actif') and defines the scope: nothing is sent until reprendre_message_recurrent. It is clearly distinguishable from resuming or stopping a recurring message.

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 gives clear context for use: the message must be active, and execution requires first showing the preview and obtaining explicit consent. It names reprendre_message_recurrent as the resumption path, though it does not explicitly contrast with arreter_message_recurrent for permanent stopping.

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