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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description meaningfully scopes that destruction by enumerating what is preserved (versions, media, created sites) — a nuance the annotations cannot convey. It does not say whether archiving is reversible, what state the template enters, or that it stays referenced by existing sites, but the added scope information is substantive for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that puts the action and its non-destructive scope in the first line, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the single most important behavioral fact (what is not destroyed). What is missing is the concurrency precondition implied by expectedVersion and whether the archive can be undone, but the core call semantics are adequately conveyed.

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 0% and the description says nothing about either parameter. In particular, expectedVersion is a non-obvious optimistic-concurrency token whose purpose (conflict detection / stale-write protection) is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

"Retirer un modèle du catalogue" names a specific verb (remove from catalog) and resource (template), and immediately contrasts the operation with full deletion by listing what survives (versions, media, existing sites). This lets an agent distinguish it from delete-style siblings without inspecting the schema. It stops short of naming a specific sibling such as publish_template or update_template_metadata.

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 phrasing implies the appropriate scenario — retiring a template from the catalog when you do not want to destroy its assets — which is real usage guidance. However it never states explicit preconditions, when-not to use it, or which sibling performs the harder deletion the agent might reach for instead.

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