Retirer un drapeau d'un enregistrement

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the flag itself is not deleted, the operation is reversible via boond_flags_attach, and API errors for absent flags are passed through unchanged. This is useful, non-contradictory context.

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 compact and well-structured: action, route, usage conditions, alternative context, idempotency note, and return shape. Every section earns its place, and the most important purpose statement is front-loaded.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with an output schema and informative annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, reversibility, idempotency, and the exact return shape. There are no significant 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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters adequately. The description references the RAML for route details but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retire un drapeau d'un enregistrement' and names the exact API operation. It also distinguishes itself from boond_flags_attach (reverse operation) and clarifies that no sibling deletes a flag from the catalog, so the tool's purpose is unambiguous.

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 'Quand' section explicitly states when to use the tool ('pour dé-taguer une fiche'), and the 'Plutôt que' section explains the alternative framing: flags are removed record-by-record, and no tool deletes the flag itself. This gives the agent clear selection criteria relative to sibling tools.

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