infomaniak_add_site_aliases

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: two-phase commit, asynchronous return of progress_id, eventual consistency (alias appears in list after a few seconds), and the manager-private restriction. This adds meaningful context beyond the readOnly/destructive hints, and there is 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?

Three sentences, each carrying essential information: core action, architectural effect, and key behavioral caveats (async, two-phase, manager-private). No fluff, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (two-phase commit, async provisioning, destructive hint, output schema), the description and schema together cover the essential workflow: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and the confirmation token's role. A slightly more explicit walkthrough of the two phases would improve it, but it is largely sufficient.

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 already provides descriptions for aliases and confirmation_token, but site_id and hosting_id lack schema descriptions. The description itself does not elaborate these parameters, though the tool name and top-level text imply the hosting/site context. With only 50% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by clarifying wildcard usage and DNS prerequisites for aliases, but leaves some gap for the two id parameters.

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 (bind FQDNs), the target resource (web hosting site), and the effect (Apache vhost serves the new domains). It also distinguishes the tool from related siblings like delete_site_alias by noting 'no new site provisioning required'.

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 gives useful context: it mentions the two-phase commit, asynchronous behavior, and the fact that no new site provisioning is needed, implying when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for not using it, such as when deletion is needed (sibling delete_site_alias).

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