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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value beyond them by disclosing the auth requirement (logged-in Tchin account, merchant or individual, connection prompt on first use) and the concrete consequence for the counterparty. It stops short of saying whether the cancellation is reversible or what happens to funds already associated with the link.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the 'encore ouvert' constraint is placed right before the consequence. Leading with the audience/auth clause rather than the action slightly delays the core verb, but overall it is tight.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool whose annotations already spell out destructive and idempotent behavior, the description supplies the two things annotations cannot: who may call it and what changes for the recipient. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('L'adresse du lien de retrait ou son code'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the identifier format or accepted values, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not additive.

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 and resource ('Annule un lien de retrait') and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('encore ouvert') plus the observable effect ('la personne ne pourra plus retirer'). It is distinguishable from siblings like supprimer_lien or mes_liens_retrait, though it never names them explicitly.

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 phrase 'encore ouvert' implies a precondition — only open withdrawal links are cancellable — which is real usage guidance. However, it never states what to do for already-closed links, nor points to the sibling tools (supprimer_lien, modifier_lien, mes_liens_retrait) that an agent might confuse it with.

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