infomaniak_add_account_team_users

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail by mentioning "Two-phase commit with a fresh team-members snapshot guard." This discloses non-obvious transactional behavior that annotations do not cover, enhancing the agent's understanding of side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word contributes meaning, and the second sentence adds critical behavioral context without verbose explanation.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (two-phase commit, snapshot guard, confirmation_token parameter, output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain the mechanics of the two-phase commit, when confirmation_token is required, or what the snapshot guard entails. While the output schema exists, the behavioral complexity warrants more detail than what is provided. The description is adequate but leaves significant gaps.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for three of the four parameters (account_id, team_id, payload), and the description adds little beyond that. The payload is described generically as "Request body accepted by the corresponding Infomaniak endpoint," with no further clarification in the description. Since schema coverage is 75%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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: "Add one or more users to an account team." This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like infomaniak_remove_account_team_users. The additional "Two-phase commit with a fresh team-members snapshot guard" further clarifies the tool's specific behavior.

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 usage context is implied by the description: use when you need to add users to an account team. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. It does not name alternative tools or conditions when this should not be used.

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