Définir le domaine du projet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable write. The description only reinforces that the value must originate from the user rather than from the model, and says nothing about overwriting an existing domain, error behavior, or what is returned — though the output schema covers the last point. Modest added value beyond annotations.

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?

A single sentence with the governing constraint ("PAR L'UTILISATEUR") front-loaded in emphasis, then the sequencing hint. Nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.

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?

With annotations, a fully documented schema and an output schema, much of the burden is already carried elsewhere. Still, for a state-changing setter the description omits what happens to a previously assigned domain and whether user confirmation is required — the very point it emphasizes — leaving a real gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 100%, including the domain_id cross-reference to list_domain_profiles and the convention enum meaning, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the semantic constraint that the domain value must reflect a user choice, but clarifies none of the three parameters individually.

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?

"Enregistre la discipline choisie" gives a specific verb (records/saves) and resource (the project's domain/discipline), and the parenthetical distinguishes it from identify_domain by framing this as persisting a user decision rather than inferring one. It stops short of naming any other sibling or stating what happens to a previously set domain, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

"après identify_domain ou sur sa demande" explicitly places the call in a sequence and names the alternative tool that precedes it. It is clear when to use it, though it gives no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. don't call if the user hasn't decided, or if the domain is already set).

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