envoyer_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose three useful behaviors: a preview/APERÇU mode, automatic mentions being disabled, and mandatory human validation. It omits the permission requirements, whether state changes persist, message-length or rate limits, and what the result looks like.

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 fragments that lead with the most important signal (APERÇU) and stay free of filler. The telegraphic fragment style is efficient but sacrifices connective detail that could have clarified intent, for instance around the preview mode.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. An agent still cannot determine the required permissions, the ID format for the channel, or the embed shape, so this is not enough to call the tool reliably.

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%: 'salon_id' and 'contenu' have bare titles, and 'embeds' is an untyped array of free-form objects. The description only echoes that a message and/or embeds are supplied and explains no parameter formats, ID conventions, or embed structure, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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: 'Publier un message et/ou des embeds' clearly identifies the action as posting a message with optional embeds. It does not differentiate from siblings, but the surrounding tool list is mostly role/guild management, so ambiguity is low. The leading 'APERÇU' (preview) slightly muddies whether posting actually occurs.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or named alternatives are given, so it is unclear how this relates to the plan/approval siblings (preparer_plan, ouvrir_approbation, executer_plan). The phrase 'Validation humaine obligatoire' implies an approval workflow but never states whether this tool can be called directly or only after approval.

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