infomaniak_api_call

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

Discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: GET runs immediately, POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE follow a two-phase commit pattern, and manager-private endpoints are inaccessible. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with 'Escape hatch', no redundant words. Each sentence adds critical 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 generic escape hatch with an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavioral pattern, and limitations. Could be slightly more explicit about required parameters for different methods, but sufficient.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the behavioral context for method (GET immediate, others two-phase commit) and implies usage of confirmation_token. However, it doesn't detail the path pattern or query object beyond what schema provides.

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 clearly states it's an 'escape hatch' for any public Infomaniak API endpoint when no dedicated tool exists. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it covers undocumented endpoints.

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?

Explicitly says 'when no dedicated tool exists' and warns that manager-private endpoints are not reachable and to 'use a typed tool instead'. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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