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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the requirement to be connected to a Tchin account (connection requested the first time) and the concrete consequence that a deactivated link can no longer be paid. That effect is worth stating given destructiveHint=false, since an agent might otherwise assume deactivation is purely cosmetic. It stops short of saying whether the toggle is reversible or what response is returned.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It is slightly back-loaded: the audience and connection prerequisite precede the actual action, so an agent scanning for the verb finds it second.

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 idempotent toggle with no output schema, the description covers the action, the audience, the auth prerequisite, and the effect of deactivation. Only edge cases (already-in-desired-state, error behavior, reversibility) are unaddressed, which is a minor gap given annotations already declare idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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 50% — 'lien' is documented in the schema, but 'actif' has no description anywhere. The description's 'active ou désactive' hints at the boolean's meaning but never states that true activates and false deactivates, so it adds only marginal value over the schema.

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 ('Active ou désactive') on a specific resource ('lien de paiement du marchand'), which separates it from generic link tools like modifier_lien or supprimer_lien. It also clarifies the resource is a merchant payment link rather than a withdrawal link, though it never explicitly names the sibling to prefer.

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?

Implies the use case (merchant or individual managing their own payment link) and states an authentication precondition, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus modifier_lien, supprimer_lien, or afficher_lien_tchin, and no when-not conditions.

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