odoo_demo_mode

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral responsibility. It discloses critical traits: demo bases are not neutralized (real emails sent), address rewriting details (left part preserved), domain must be unreachable, and real domains are refused. This goes beyond basic expectations and directly informs safe usage.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the critical instruction, followed by essential safety warnings. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition of schema details. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool is a safety toggle with two simple parameters, the description covers purpose, timing, side effects, parameter constraints, and usage restrictions. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool, and the output schema likely handles return values, so no further description is needed.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage in the description, but the description adds meaning for 'domaine' (must be unreachable, real domain refused) and implies 'actif' by saying 'Une fois actif' (once active). It does not explicitly define actif, but the boolean's purpose is clear from context. It compensates well for the schema's bare structure.

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 clearly states it is an email filter to activate before demo data generation, with a specific verb ('activer') and resource ('filet e-mail'). It explains the exact purpose—rewriting email addresses to a safe domain to prevent real emails—and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on this safety configuration.

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 description explicitly says 'a activer AVANT toute generation de donnees de demo' (to activate before any demo data generation), providing clear timing and context. It also warns about real email being sent if not activated, which is a strong usage signal. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, so it is not a perfect 5.

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