carnet_repondre

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations cannot convey: the action can fail if the entry does not accept replies, and the text must be user-validated before sending. It omits required permissions (parent vs. teacher) and any rate or moderation constraints.

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 with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the conditional and the workflow caveat. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 three-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the precondition and the validation workflow but leaves one parameter (enfant_id) unexplained and says nothing about failure modes or what a successful send returns. Adequate as a minimum, but incomplete.

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 only 33%, so the description must carry more weight than it does. It gestures at 'texte' via the validation instruction and at mot_id via 'un mot du carnet', but it never clarifies that enfant_id identifies which child's carnet the entry belongs to, nor the expected format of the reply body. The $defs descriptions partially compensate, but the description itself adds little.

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 states a specific verb and resource in French: it writes a reply to a 'mot du carnet de liaison', which is clearly distinct from carnet_lister (listing) and carnet_signer (signing). The parenthetical condition '(si le mot accepte les réponses)' adds useful scope. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

It specifies a precondition for use ('si le mot accepte les réponses') and a mandatory workflow step ('Faire valider le texte par l'utilisateur avant l'envoi'), which is real operational guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. carnet_signer) or stating when not to reply, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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