infomaniak_delete_redirection

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

The description explicitly mentions 'Two-phase commit', which is critical behavioral information beyond annotations. Parameter descriptions further detail the two-step process: omit token for plan, pass token for deletion. Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent, but the description adds workflow 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 main description is only two short sentences, directly stating purpose and key behavioral trait. No unnecessary words, and the most important information 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?

The main description is brief but combined with parameter descriptions and annotations, the tool definition is quite complete for an agent. The two-phase process is fully explained in the confirmation_token parameter. Minor improvement would be to add the two-phase mention in the main description, but current level is 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?

All three parameters have detailed, actionable descriptions in the input schema, such as 'Discover via infomaniak_list_mail_hostings' for mail_hosting_id and 'List existing rules with infomaniak_list_redirections' for name. This adds significant meaning beyond type/format.

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 'Delete a mail redirection', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'infomaniak_create_redirection' and 'infomaniak_list_redirections'.

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?

Parameter descriptions provide usage guidance: 'name' advises listing existing redirections first, and 'confirmation_token' explains the two-phase commit workflow. However, the main description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives.

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