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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety bar is lower, yet the description adds meaningful behavior the annotations cannot express: the call 'peut lancer réellement les workflows configurés sur tag ajouté/statut changé', meaning external automations fire. The timeout/re-read instruction is a direct idempotency warning against repeating side effects, which is genuinely useful for an open-world destructive 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the mutation, then immutability, then side effects, then retry safety. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition, though the description is written in French while the title and most sibling tools are English, which adds a small parsing cost for a non-French-speaking agent.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what changes, what cannot change, that automations may fire, and how to recover from a timeout. The remaining gaps — why a 'version' is required, what happens on a version conflict, and what the unexplained 'response' parameter means — are the only things an agent would still need.

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 burden, and it only partially compensates: it explains 'tags', 'status' and hints at 'version' ('avec sa version actuelle'). The required 'id' and the string 'response' parameter (maxLength 64) are never explained — an agent must guess whether 'response' is a token, hash, or identifier, which is a real gap for a 5-required-parameter mutation.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Remplacer les tags et le statut d'une réponse' — an agent knows this mutates exactly two fields of a form response, not the submitted content. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as get_form_response or update_record, so differentiation is left to the name, but the scope statement is unambiguous.

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?

It gives real usage constraints: 'Les réponses saisies sont immuables' tells the agent only tags/status can be changed, and 'Après timeout, relire avant de réessayer' prescribes a safe retry procedure. However, it never says when to choose this over alternatives like get_form_response or update_record, and it does not state preconditions such as needing a current version value before calling.

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