infomaniak_cancel_user_pending_invitations

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

Annotations declare destructive and idempotent hints, but the description adds critical context: two-phase commit, confirmation token, and fresh prefetch to only delete still-pending invitations. This goes beyond the structured data.

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 purpose, then process. No redundant 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?

The two-phase commit is a complex behavior, and the description succinctly explains both phases. Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Annotations cover safety. The description is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 covers all params with descriptions; the description adds meaning by explaining the token's role in the second phase and the flow from first to second call. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Cancel pending account invitations for a user' with a specific verb and resource, and the two-phase commit detail distinguishes it from simpler invitation management tools.

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 explains the two-step process but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like infomaniak_manage_account_invitation_access or infomaniak_delete_account_invitation. Usage is implied for cancelling a user's pending invitations.

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