infomaniak_create_hosting_user

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true (mutation) and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the two-phase commit, password policy, and login formatting rules. 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?

The description is extremely concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers creation, two-phase commit, connection types, and password policy. It does not explain the token parameter or two-phase flow in detail, but an output schema is present, reducing the need to document return values. Adequate for a well-annotated tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema independently documents all parameters. The description adds context about the two-phase commit (token) and password policy but does not describe each parameter beyond what the schema already 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 the action (create), the resource (FTP/SSH user on web hosting), and specifies the connection types. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'infomaniak_create_database' or 'infomaniak_create_mailbox' by focusing on user creation for hosting.

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 description mentions 'Two-phase commit', which signals a multi-step process (plan then apply). It distinguishes between 'ftp' and 'ssh' connection types with clear behavioral differences. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., need hosting ID via 'infomaniak_list_hostings') or when not to use this tool.

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