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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that no message is sent, the card leaves the current batch, the contact returns on the return date, and the deferral can be cancelled in the app. These details clarify the write behavior and reversibility in a way that annotations alone do not.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and duration, then adds relevant behavioral details. It is mostly efficient, though the enum/default repetition and phrase “sans jugement” make it slightly less tight than it could be.

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?

The definition is complete for a write operation with fully described parameters and no output schema: it covers the action, duration, return behavior, text-card restriction, lack of sending, cancellation path, and required write scope.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description repeats the allowed `jours` values and default, but does not add new meaning for `card_id` beyond identifying it as a follow-up card.

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 states a specific action and resource: putting the contact of a follow-up card aside for a number of days. It also distinguishes this from sending a follow-up by explicitly saying “Rien n'est envoyé” and limits scope with “Cartes texte seulement.”

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 description gives clear usage context by comparing it to “Reproposer plus tard” in the app and specifying that only text cards are eligible. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as sending, approving, or rejecting a card, so the agent must infer when to choose deferral rather than another card action.

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