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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new context: a write scope is required, and the note becomes visible inside Ficiel as a human-authored note — a side effect on shared team data. It omits the 4000-character cap and any duplicate/rate considerations, but the annotation bar is already met.

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?

Three short sentences with the action front-loaded and no redundant restatement of the title. Nothing is padding, though the visibility sentence could be merged with the scope sentence for tighter flow.

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 append operation with full annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies what structured fields don't: permission scope and human-visible side effect. Only the return value is unaddressed and there is no output schema, a minor gap for such a simple call.

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% (both content and lead_id are documented with types and format), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only says the note attaches to a contact card, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema — 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Ajoute une note libre sur la fiche d'un contact.' An agent can tell this apart from ficiel_add_tag (tags) or ficiel_update_lead (field edits), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 scope requirement ('Portée write requise') implies this must not be called for a read-only inspection, and the manual-note framing implies usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-something-else guidance (e.g., versus update_lead or send_message).

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