infomaniak_provision_site_full

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds critical behavioral details: the two-phase commit nature, that the plan lists all steps, and that on apply partial completion is reported if anything fails. These are not present in annotations and provide strong transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains the key workflow behavior. Every sentence is essential and not redundant with schema or annotations.

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 (8 parameters, 3 required) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the high-level process and failure behavior. It could mention what the plan response contains besides the token, but overall it's complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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% and each parameter is already well-described in the schema. The description adds workflow context (e.g., confirmation_token from plan phase) but does not significantly enhance individual parameter meanings beyond what's in 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 explicitly states it provisions a complete website end-to-end, including web site, MariaDB database, and DNS A record. It also mentions the two-phase commit workflow, clearly distinguishing it from atomic sibling tools like infomaniak_create_site or infomaniak_create_database.

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 explains the two-phase commit (plan/apply) workflow and that each step is reported in order, giving context on how to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this composite tool over individual siblings, though the 'end-to-end' phrasing implies it's for full provisioning.

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