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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers: attached walls are extended, furniture follows moved walls, obstructing objects are pushed, switches are relocated out of door openings, results are re-validated, defect-creating walls are rejected, and stacked load-bearing walls never move alone. It also discloses the deterministic-vs-language-model switch via `modele`.

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-loaded with the WHEN clause and dense throughout, with the downstream-routing note and return-field list at the end. A few parenthetical examples could be trimmed, but almost every clause carries behavioral information.

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?

With no output schema, the description enumerates the return fields (compris, source, operations, journal, erreurs, nouvelles_alertes, valide, scene, difference) and tells the agent what to do with `scene`. For a tool with nested objects and a nested `scene` parameter, nothing needed to call it correctly 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; the description adds real meaning beyond it by clarifying that `operations` come from the catalogue endpoint and are applied without the language model, and that `scene` shares the cao_generer_ifc format.

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+resource (natural-language requests become typed millimetre-precise operations on an existing building scene) with concrete trigger examples. It also positions itself against siblings by routing its `scene` output to cao_generer_ifc or cao_pdf.

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?

The 'WHEN a user asks to change an existing building scene in plain words' clause plus quoted examples give clear triggering conditions, and the `operations` path is named as an alternative when no language model is wanted. It never states a negative case (e.g. 'do not use to create a scene from scratch'), which cao_generer_ifc only implies.

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