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

Goes well beyond the annotations: states reversibility, that no message is sent, that nothing is deleted, that an archived conversation auto-returns on the contact's next message, that a no-op returns 'already_in_state', and that a 'write' scope is required. Annotations already cover destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the concrete consequences an agent needs.

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 effect ('Sort la conversation de la boîte de réception') and then packs the auto-return rule, reversibility, no-op behavior, and permission requirement into a few dense clauses without repetition. Every sentence adds a distinct fact.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still discloses the meaningful response signal (already_in_state), the reversibility semantics, and the required scope. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this mutation safely and interpret the result 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?

Only one parameter, conversation_id, with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format information beyond what the schema provides; the only extra hint is that the conversation may be 1:1 or group.

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 ('Sort la conversation de la boîte de réception') and clarifies it applies to both 1:1 and group conversations. It explicitly names the inverse sibling, ficiel_unarchive_conversation, so an agent can distinguish archive from unarchive without reading either schema.

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?

Names the counter-tool (ficiel_unarchive_conversation) and explains the automatic-return condition (next inbound message), which effectively tells the agent when archiving is appropriate versus permanent removal. It does not mention the bulk variant ficiel_bulk_archive as an alternative for multi-conversation cases, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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