infomaniak_undo

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

Description adds significant context beyond annotations: it reveals the two-phase commit process, the reversible condition, and that a plan is returned first. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which align. No contradictions. Could further clarify behavior of confirmation_token, but sufficient.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose and behavior with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with action, then two-phase detail. Every word earns its place.

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?

Description explains the two-phase commit and reversibility but omits where history_id originates (likely from infomaniak_history sibling) and how to obtain the confirmation_token. Given the complexity and existence of an output schema, more context about the flow would improve completeness.

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 0%, yet description provides no explicit explanation of the two parameters. 'history_id' is implicitly linked to the action to undo, but 'confirmation_token' is not explained. Description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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?

Description clearly states the tool reverses destructive actions from session history, with precise verb 'Reverse' and resource 'destructive action'. It distinguishes from siblings like infomaniak_history, which lists history but does not undo, and from create/delete tools which are constructive.

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?

Description implies use when an action is reversible and mentions a two-phase commit pattern, but does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., irreversible actions) or provide alternatives like manual restoration. No reference to prerequisites (e.g., history_id from infomaniak_history).

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