supprimer_salon

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key destructive traits: the channel and its messages are removed, the action is irreversible, and a backup restores structure but not messages. It omits permissions required, whether confirmation is needed, and what 'APERÇU' actually changes about behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive outcome and its irreversibility. The unexplained 'APERÇU' prefix is the only element that does not clearly earn its place.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most important risk (permanent loss of messages). It leaves gaps on required permissions, confirmation flow, and the meaning of the preview marker, which an agent would need to call this safely.

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?

There is a single required parameter, salon_id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description would ideally clarify its meaning. It only implies the parameter by referring to 'un salon', adding no format or resolution details, but the low parameter count keeps the ambiguity small.

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 ('Supprimer un salon et ses messages'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like creer_salon and modifier_salon. The leading token 'APERÇU' is unexplained and sits oddly next to 'suppression irréversible', leaving some doubt about whether this is a dry-run or a real deletion.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as modifier_salon or the plan/approval siblings (preparer_plan, executer_plan). The remark about backup hints at a relationship with sauvegarder_serveur but never states a prerequisite or ordering.

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