permissions_salon

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Remplacer' usefully signals that existing channel overrides are overwritten rather than merged, but nothing covers required permissions, reversibility, defaults for autoriser/refuser, or what a call returns.

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?

It is short with no padding, but it reads as three telegraphic fragments rather than complete sentences, and the ambiguous 'APERÇU' occupies the front-loaded position where the actual action should lead.

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 five-parameter overwrite operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot determine the target-type vocabulary or the mask encoding well enough to call it confidently.

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 five parameters with bare titles. 'Masques décimaux texte' genuinely clarifies that autoriser/refuser are decimal-string bitmasks, but cible_type's allowed values, cible_id format, and the interaction between the two masks remain undocumented.

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 ('Remplacer les permissions spécifiques d'un rôle ou membre dans un salon'), which clearly separates it from sibling mutation tools like modifier_salon and modifier_role. The leading 'APERÇU' fragment is unexplained and slightly muddies whether this acts or only previews.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this over calculer_permissions or modifier_role/modifier_salon, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. 'APERÇU' hints at a preview-only context but never states it, leaving selection to inference.

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