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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes further: it explains the destructive mechanism ('null ou un texte vide EFFACE le champ'), only supplied fields change, it returns a before/after diff, and it requires a write scope. This is exactly the added behavioral context the annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then fields, then mutation semantics, warnings and exclusions. Dense but every sentence carries information; the semicolon-separated clauses are efficient though the middle section is slightly packed.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what changes, how null is handled, what the return contains (before/after), the auth scope, and the fields it must not touch. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: per-field types (disponibilite as free text, score as integer 0-100, custom_display_name as displayed nickname) and the critical null-erases-a-field rule that governs every optional parameter.

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 (Modifie) plus the exact resource (champs de la fiche d'un contact) and enumerates the mutable fields. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming what it does NOT touch (ficiel_set_stage, ficiel_add_note), so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 context for use (updating contact form fields) and explicit exclusions that point to sibling tools for stage, notes, Kord, deal amount and qualification. Lacks an explicit 'use this when X vs Y' condition for the closest sibling (ficiel_get_lead / fiche_prospect), but the exclusion list is strong routing guidance.

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