Reserver un collaborateur sur une mission

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 one meaningful trait: explicit failure when collaborator, mission, or capacity are invalid. However, for a mutation it omits idempotency, permission requirements, and whether it overwrites or coexists with existing reservations.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the failure condition following. No filler, though it could be marginally sharper about the mutation's side effects.

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 4-required-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and failure mode but leaves conflict handling, permissions, and post-condition behavior unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 75%, with mission_id, collaborateur_id and jours already documented and mois self-describing via a pattern. The description loosely maps to all four inputs but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: placing a day reservation on a collaborator for a given month. The purpose is immediately clear and distinguishable from the read-only siblings (obtenir/rechercher/analyser). It stops short of 5 because it never names or contrasts with those siblings.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. The mention that it fails on capacity hints that a pre-check might be relevant (e.g. analyser_staffing_mission), but that connection is left entirely to inference.

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