privacy_settings

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is well covered. The description adds that the tool performs both reads and writes, which is mild extra context, but it discloses nothing about permissions, reversibility of changes, or what a modification affects.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating resource, example settings, and the read/modify modes. The trailing ellipsis leaves the enumeration open-ended, which is slightly loose, but overall it is tight and economical.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no coverage, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a 3-param tool, the description covers the read/write duality and setting types competently, but the undocumented 'account' parameter and the absence of any usage context leave modest 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 description coverage is 67% and the schema already lists the allowed value/setting tokens. The description usefully renders those settings in plain language (vu à, en ligne, photo, statut, confirmations de lecture...), reinforcing the 'setting' param, but it says nothing about 'account' and adds no syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 fits.

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 names the resource (privacy settings), the dual verb (read or modify 'en lecture ou pour en modifier'), and enumerates concrete setting types (last seen, online, photo, status, read receipts, group-add). An agent can tell what the tool governs. It does not, however, contrast itself against nearby siblings such as blocklist or set_about, leaving a small differentiation gap.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description says the tool can read or change a privacy setting but gives no explicit when-to-use, preconditions, or alternatives. The read-vs-write distinction (setting param absent = read-only) lives in the schema, not here. This is functional but leaves the agent to infer the calling context.

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