preparer_restauration

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the load itself and does reasonably well: it discloses that later additions are preserved, that non-targeted role assignments and deleted messages are not restored automatically, and that human approval is required. It stops short of stating explicitly whether preparing this preview mutates state.

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, purpose front-loaded, followed by preservation behavior, exclusions, and the approval gate. No filler and no repetition of the tool name or schema.

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 preview operation with no output schema, the description should say what the aperçu actually returns (a plan? a diff?) and how it leads to approval, since that is the whole point of the tool. The destructive-change scope is well covered, but the output and follow-up path are not.

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% and the description adds no meaning about backup_id beyond what the name implies. Since there is only one obviously-named required parameter, the practical risk of mis-invocation is low, but no compensating detail (where the id comes from, format) is provided.

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 first clause states a specific verb and resource: 'Préparer un aperçu de restauration d'une sauvegarde', which tells an agent this is a preview/dry-run step rather than an execution. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling preparer_retour_arriere or preparer_plan, so differentiation is only partial.

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 implies the workflow position through 'Approbation humaine requise', suggesting this preview precedes an approval and execution step (ouvrir_approbation / executer_plan). However, it never names those alternatives or states when to choose restauration over retour arrière, leaving the routing to inference.

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