messagerie_rappeler

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information in the form of the 60-minute eligibility window, but it does not say what recall actually does to the message (removed from recipients? replaced?), what permissions are required, or what happens past the 60-minute mark.

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, tightly written sentence with the action front-loaded and the qualifying condition appended. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema and annotations that already declare the destructive/idempotent profile, the description supplies the key scoping constraint an agent needs. It is slightly thin on outcome and failure behavior (what recall returns or what error occurs after 60 minutes), but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Identifiant du message'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the id's expected format or source, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb ('Rappelle/annule') and a specific resource ('un message envoyé'), and the parenthetical '(annule)' disambiguates 'rappeler' from its other French sense of 'to remind'. It also scopes the operation with a 60-minute window, which helps separate it from a plain delete, though it never names the sibling tools (messagerie_supprimer, messagerie_restaurer) it is adjacent to.

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 60-minute limit is effectively an implied precondition for when this tool can be used, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as messagerie_supprimer for older messages. Usage must be inferred from the timing constraint.

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