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

Adds real value beyond the annotations: it declares the required « write » scope, clarifies the effect is limited to auto-generated relances, and states the setting is identical to the UI pause button (implying reversibility). Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent), so this is solid but not exhaustive — it doesn't say what happens to already-scheduled relances.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the crucial non-effects and permission requirement. No filler.

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 2-parameter toggle with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The one residual ambiguity is whether pausing also cancels already-queued relances or only stops new ones from being generated.

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 both parameters (lead_id uuid, paused boolean) are fully documented in the schema itself, including the true/false semantics. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond what is already structured, so the baseline of 3 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 action (couper/réactiver) on a precisely scoped resource (ce que Kord prépare de lui-même sur CE contact, le lot quotidien de relances). It also draws an explicit boundary against the « Suggérer » button and manual writing, so an agent can distinguish it from nearby siblings like ficiel_ne_plus_proposer.

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?

Clear about the context: toggling Kord's self-generated daily follow-ups per contact, reversible in both directions, and explicitly not affecting suggestions or manual outreach. It does not name alternative tools (e.g. ficiel_ne_plus_proposer, ficiel_cancel_scheduled) that an agent might confuse it with, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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