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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing a non-obvious side effect: an active twin conversation from the same contact on the same account gets archived in its place. It also confirms reversibility, that no message is sent and nothing is deleted, that the required scope is 'write', and that the response carries an already_in_state flag.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the core action, the twin-conversation side effect, the safety profile, and the idempotent response. The primary action is front-loaded with zero 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?

With a single required parameter and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the action, the collateral effect on twin conversations, safety guarantees, and the already_in_state response field. Nothing material is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents conversation_id fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond that, which is the baseline case for full schema coverage.

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 and resource ('Remet la conversation dans la boîte de réception') and scopes it to one-to-one or group conversations. The inverse relationship with ficiel_archive_conversation is inferable but the sibling is never named, so differentiation relies on the agent's reasoning rather than explicit text.

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 applicable context (conversations à deux ou groupe) and explicitly describes the no-op branch when the conversation is already unarchived. It does not name ficiel_archive_conversation as the counterpart or state when not to use this tool, which keeps it below a 5.

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