decide_campagne

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose auth requirements (API key, X-Make-Secret/X-API-Key), cost (0 units), data retention ('jamais conservée après la décision'), and constraints ('Never invent offers/prices'). However, it introduces an internal contradiction: it says Synergieloc decides cible, while the input schema exposes cible as a parameter. This leaves an agent uncertain about whether to send that field.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded with the trigger condition and immediately useful constraints. Endpoint, auth, and cost details are packed in efficiently. Every clause contributes operational information, though the mixed-language style and run-on feel slightly hurt readability.

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?

The description covers the workflow, authentication, cost, and follow-up endpoint. Since there is no output schema, it should more explicitly describe the decision response structure; 'cible, campagne and actions[]' is only a minimal hint. The input/output ambiguity around cible also leaves an important gap in understanding the full contract.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful global constraint ('Pass prospect info only') and warns against inventing offers/prices, which relates to the produit parameter. But the cible contradiction undermines the added meaning and can mislead an agent about a specific parameter's role.

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 clearly identifies the tool as an authenticated decision engine for outreach/campaigns: it decides what to do with each collected prospect. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are mostly document/CAO/real-estate operations. However, the claim that 'Synergieloc decides cible' is partially contradicted by the presence of a cible input parameter in the schema, which muddies the stated purpose.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition ('WHEN an outreach scenario has collected prospects') and a mandatory ordering ('MUST call this before sending commercial email'). It also tells the agent what to do after the decision ('follow actions envoyer_offre → POST /api/v1/agent/demarchage'). There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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