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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing non-obvious semantics: quiet hours have not blocked any send since 08/09/2026, they only shift when the morning follow-up batch is prepared, paused is inert, and Kord never acts autonomously since the Delegation was removed. These quirks are invisible in the schema and would materially change how an agent uses the 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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the warnings are ordered by importance. There is mild redundancy: 'Kord n'envoie jamais rien seul' and 'Kord ne répond jamais seul' repeat the same fact, and the paused no-op is stated in both the prose and the schema.

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?

Four parameters fully documented, no output schema to explain, and the description still covers prerequisites (write scope), misleading legacy fields, and the actual effect of the settings. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to predict that it will not suppress sends.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds genuine value by explaining that quiet_start/quiet_end now only move the morning batch time and by documenting the 7:30 local default, plus flagging paused as a no-op. It does not go further into format or edge cases, but the schema already carries HH:MM and null-to-remove semantics.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb pair and resource with scope: 'Lit ou modifie les heures calmes d'un canal entier (Instagram, WhatsApp…)'. It also separates itself from the read path by naming ficiel_list_tags_and_stages for read-only keys, so an agent can route without opening 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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not: which tool to fall back on for read-only keys, that 'write' scope is required even for reading, and that paused should not be relied on. It also corrects the agent's likely false assumption that quiet hours block sends, which is exactly the guidance that prevents misuse.

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