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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real beyond-schema context: which states are eligible, that out-of-state rules are left untouched (partial-failure semantics), that the modified count is returned as 'updated', and that a write scope is required. This is substantive behavioral disclosure.

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 verb and scope lead the sentence, followed by state preconditions, side effect on untouched rules, return value, and auth requirement. Dense but front-loaded and free of filler, though it packs several clauses into long sentences.

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 single-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers eligibility states, no-op behavior for ineligible rules, the returned count, and the required write scope. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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% and the single param (pattern_ids) is well documented in the schema itself, including a pointer to ficiel_list_learned_patterns. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 for schema-driven param semantics applies.

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 ('Écarter' = dismiss/discard) and resource (règles apprises) and clarifies the effect ('Kord ne les suit plus'), which is far more informative than the title. It does not explicitly name a sibling (e.g. ficiel_approve_learned_patterns or ficiel_convert_learned_patterns), so differentiation is inferable from the state semantics rather than stated.

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?

Implies usage by describing the affected starting states (proposed, approved) and the outcome, which tells an agent when the call will take effect. However, it never states when to prefer this over approve/convert/reject siblings, nor any exclusion beyond the implicit state precondition.

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