creer_salon

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full safety burden and does so on the decisive point: it explicitly states no change occurs before human approval, so an agent will not assume the channel exists afterwards. It leaves unstated what the preview returns (a plan reference?), whether prepared previews expire, or what permissions are required, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Three short fragments with the most important qualifier (APERÇU) front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the second and third sentences could be merged into one clause without loss.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is too thin. An agent knows it is a safe preview but not what it produces, how the result feeds the approval step, or how to populate type/sujet/categorie_id.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and it adds nothing about any of them. Only "salon" hints that nom is the channel name; type, sujet and categorie_id (all with defaults) are completely undefined in both the schema and the description.

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?

"Préparer la création d'un salon" pairs a specific verb (prepare) with a specific resource (salon), and "APERÇU" immediately signals that this is a staging step rather than the creation itself, which cleanly separates it from modifier_salon/supprimer_salon. It stops short of naming the sibling that actually commits the change, so an agent must infer the link to executer_plan/ouvrir_approbation.

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?

"Aucun changement avant approbation humaine" implies this belongs to a prepare-then-approve flow, which is the right usage context. However, no sibling is named: it does not say to follow with ouvrir_approbation or executer_plan, nor does it exclude scenarios where modifier_salon is more appropriate.

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