infomaniak_delete_site_alias

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Two-phase commit' implies a confirmation step, 'Manager-private' implies access control, and it clarifies that the main FQDN cannot be removed. No contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false).

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 concise, front-loading the action and key constraint. However, 'Manager-private' is cryptic and could be clearer. Otherwise, no wasted words.

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 alias tool with an output schema and destructive annotation, the description covers the core behavior, effect (vhost no longer responds), and constraints. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., that hosting_id and site_id should come from list tools) but is otherwise complete.

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 only 25%, and the description adds minimal parameter-level detail. While the alias parameter has a detailed schema description, the description does not elaborate on other parameters (e.g., hosting_id, site_id) or the confirmation_token's role in the two-phase commit. The description could compensate more for the low coverage.

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 (remove), the resource (alias FQDN), and the constraint (cannot remove main FQDN). It distinguishes from sibling tools like infomaniak_add_site_aliases and infomaniak_list_site_aliases.

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' and 'Manager-private', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when not to use it, or when to use other site alias tools). The usage context is implied but not fully specified.

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