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

Annotations only declare write/non-destructive/closed-world; the description adds two genuinely new behavioral facts: 'Ne lance aucune action' (persisting does not trigger execution) and optimistic concurrency via current version. It stops short of saying what happens on a version mismatch or what is returned, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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: purpose, non-execution guarantee, update precondition, then sibling routing. Front-loaded and every clause earns its place, with no restatement of the title.

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 10-parameter mutation with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition should at minimum characterize the required name field, the priority enum, and what the call yields (e.g. created task id). The safety and concurrency story is covered, but the payload contract is only partially complete.

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 coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It maps id/version to updates and names input, dueAt, assignedTo, flowId/agentId, but leaves the required 'name', 'priority' (the only enum) and 'instructions' unexplained, leaving roughly a third of the surface undocumented.

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 pair (créer/modifier) and resource (tâche), and enumerates the payload concepts (input, échéance, responsable, agent/workflow). It explicitly names the two siblings it is not (run_task, claim_task), so an agent can place it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use this to persist a task, run_task to execute it, claim_task for an MCP agent. It also states the update precondition (id plus current version), which is exactly the when-to-use rule an agent needs.

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