preparer_plan

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose the most important behavioral trait: nothing is changed on Discord, yet a plan is persisted ("enregistrer"). It does not say what is returned (a plan identifier needed for later execution), whether repeated calls create duplicate plans, or how long a saved plan stays valid.

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 sentences with the critical constraint ("APERÇU SEULEMENT") front-loaded. "Voir catalogue_actions" is telegraphic but efficient; nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation coverage, so the description must carry the return contract and parameter shape; it supplies neither. For a tool whose whole purpose is to hand back a reviewable plan, omitting what the caller receives is a material gap.

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 coverage is 0% for both required parameters. The description says nothing about "titre" or what the elements of "actions" must contain, and "actions" is a free-form object array with additionalProperties=true, which is the riskiest possible gap. The pointer to catalogue_actions partially compensates for the action shape but leaves the rest 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?

"Valider et enregistrer un plan groupé sans aucun changement Discord" states a specific verb (validate/save) and resource (grouped plan) plus the key scope boundary (no Discord mutation), which separates it from executer_plan. The French name/title pairing is slightly ambiguous (prepare vs. save), but an agent can still tell what it produces.

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?

"Afficher ce plan à l'utilisateur avant de demander sa validation locale" prescribes a workflow step, implying this is the dry-run phase preceding approval/execution, but no sibling tool (executer_plan, ouvrir_approbation, consulter_plan) is named as the alternative and no preconditions are given. Usage is therefore implied rather than explicitly routed.

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