infomaniak_authorize_sender

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=true), the description adds critical behavioral details: the two-phase commit, current-state diff, confirmation token, and the conditional application ('if the mailbox sender lists have not changed'). This is rich and consistent 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then the two-phase detail. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a complex tool with a two-phase commit, the description fully explains the protocol, and with an output schema present, it need not detail return values. It covers the essential context without unnecessary elaboration.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the confirmation_token parameter by explaining it is used in the second call to apply the PATCH, which goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 states a specific action ('Authorize this sender') and explains the two-phase commit mechanism, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like block_sender or unauthorize_sender by mentioning the PATCH and mailbox sender lists.

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 two-phase call sequence is explicitly described ('first call returns... second call with the token applies...'), providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it misses the full 'when/when-not' guidance.

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