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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that it is the widget/fiche button gesture (single-lead scope), but says nothing about side effects such as automation or relance triggers firing on a stage change, and no output schema exists.

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?

A single, tight sentence with no filler; only minor deduction because it front-loads the UI gesture context ahead of the actual action verb.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is minimally adequate. It is nonetheless incomplete on the two things an agent most needs: what it returns / what changes as a side effect, and how it differs from set_stage and bulk_set_stage.

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 only 50%: 'stage' is documented as a stage_key while 'lead_id' carries no description (only format: uuid). The description's phrase 'une autre étape du pipeline' restates the concept without adding key syntax, valid values, or how to obtain a stage_key (e.g. via list_tags_and_stages), so it fails to compensate for the gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it moves the contact ('passe le contact') to another pipeline stage. However, it never distinguishes itself from the clearly overlapping siblings ficiel_set_stage and ficiel_bulk_set_stage, so an agent cannot tell from the text which of the three stage-changing tools applies.

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 only usage signal is the UI framing ('Geste du bouton Changer d'étape de la fiche'), which implies it is the single-lead, record-view action, but this is left to inference. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or explicit routing against set_stage / bulk_set_stage, the obvious alternatives.

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