infomaniak_delete_hosting_user

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the two-phase commit and that files are preserved. Annotations include destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict them, though the two-phase nature might slightly complicate idempotency. Overall, good additional 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?

Three sentences with no waste. The main action is front-loaded, and key details (two-phase, file preservation) are provided succinctly.

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 delete operation, the description covers the two-phase process and file preservation. An output schema exists, so return values are not required. However, it could briefly mention what the first call returns (plan + token), but overall 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds extra meaning: it specifies that 'login' includes the hosting prefix and explains the two-phase use of 'confirmation_token'. This goes beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 ('Revoke a hosting user'), the specific resource (FTP/SSH access), and unique details (two-phase commit, files not deleted). It distinguishes from sibling tools like infomaniak_create_hosting_user.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other delete tools). The two-phase commit implication is present but not detailed, and no when-not-to-use advice is given.

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