infomaniak_block_sender

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

The description goes beyond the existing annotations (destructive, idempotent, non-read-only) by revealing the two-phase commit workflow, the PATCH operation, and the conditional application. This is crucial behavioral context that an agent would need to invoke the tool correctly.

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 long, with the core action front-loaded and the two-phase commit explained succinctly. Every word earns its place and it does not repeat annotation or schema information.

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 tool with a two-phase commit that is also destructive, the description explains the essential workflow, the state check condition, and the existence of a diff/token. The output schema presumably covers return details, and annotations cover safety, making this description complete enough for correct invocation.

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 input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for all four parameters (100% schema description coverage). The description adds a bit of context by explaining the confirmation_token's role in the two-phase flow, but it does not add meaning for the other parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with 'Block this sender.' which clearly states the action and resource. The second sentence provides further context by describing the two-phase commit against the mailbox sender lists, distinguishing it from sibling tools like unblock_sender and authorize_sender.

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 commit protocol is clearly explained: first call returns a diff and confirmation token, second call applies the PATCH only if the lists have not changed. This gives concrete usage steps and a condition for applying. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this over unblock/authorize tools.

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