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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is supplied; the description's only added behavioral fact is that nothing is sent. It fails to explain the destructive aspect at all — an agent would reasonably expect 'saving a draft' to be non-destructive, and nothing warns that existing draft/assignee/status data may be overwritten.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. It is written in French while the tool title, annotations and every sibling tool name are in English, an avoidable inconsistency in an otherwise tight sentence.

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?

This is a mutating tool flagged destructiveHint=true with no output schema, four parameters and zero schema documentation, yet the description covers only three fields and says nothing about the required contactId or the destructive/reset semantics. For this complexity level it leaves too much for the agent to guess.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does map three parameters to plain-language meaning (draft, assignee, status). But it omits contactId, which is one of only two required parameters — a meaningful gap the description should have closed given zero schema documentation.

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?

The description states a concrete action and lists the fields being saved (draft, assignee, status), and 'sans envoyer' distinguishes it from the send_conversation_message sibling. It never names the resource ('conversation') explicitly, so the agent must infer it from the tool name rather than the description.

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 clause 'sans envoyer' implicitly tells the agent to use this tool when it wants to persist state without dispatching a message, which is genuine routing guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or naming of the alternative send tool, so guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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