infomaniak_nodejs_app_action

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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it explains the two-phase commit, that stop causes downtime, and that build returns a log_stream. Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description elaborates on the nature of destruction. No contradiction found.

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 (three sentences) and well-structured: it states the purpose, explains the two-phase commit, then provides specific notes on stop and build, and ends with 'Manager-private.' Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, enum, output schema exists), the description covers the two-phase commit and key side effects. It assumes the output schema explains return values. The 'Manager-private' note adds context. Minor gap: no mention of what start/restart return, but output schema likely covers that.

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 50%, with action and confirmation_token described. The description adds value by explaining the two-phase commit and the effects of each action (e.g., stop causes downtime, build returns log_stream), complementing the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Start, stop, restart, or build a Node.js application.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the actions are distinct from sibling tools like infomaniak_nodejs_app_status (status) and infomaniak_nodejs_app_logs (logs).

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 implies when to use this tool (for managing app state) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives. It provides context like 'stop causes downtime' which guides cautious usage. However, it could be clearer about when not to use it, e.g., for viewing status or logs.

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