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

Goes well beyond the annotations: reversible operation, mandatory two-phase flow (simulation writes nothing, then execution with the returned token), 5-minute token validity, 50-contact cap, blacklisted contacts never touched, and the required 'write' scope. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before calling a non-read-only tool.

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 action and its polarity, then the two-phase rule, then the constraints. Dense but nearly every clause carries operational information; the 'comme l'archivage en lot de l'application' analogy is the only mildly expendable phrase.

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, and the description compensates by stating what the simulation returns (contacts concernés et ignorés). Combined with the token lifecycle, limits, and blacklist exception, an agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly.

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 still adds meaning by spelling out the simulation-vs-execution semantics of confirm_token and the requirement to reuse the same parameters and list. The archive flag and lead_ids sourcing are largely restated from the schema.

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 (archiver/désarchiver), the resource (jusqu'à 50 contacts ET leurs conversations), and the visible effect (ils quittent la boîte et la liste Contacts). The batch scope and the archive=true/false polarity make it clearly distinct from single-item siblings like ficiel_archive_conversation.

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?

Gives a clear usage context: batch archiving as in the app's bulk action, with lead_ids obtained via ficiel_list_conversations, ficiel_search or ficiel_find_dormant_leads. It does not explicitly contrast with ficiel_archive_conversation (single conversation) or ficiel_bulk_set_stage, so the agent must infer which sibling fits.

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