infomaniak_create_account_invitation

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

Annotations already state destructive/non-idempotent behavior. The description adds 'Two-phase commit with a fresh account snapshot guard' and 'payload passed through as-is,' which are non-obvious behavioral traits. However, these are cryptic and not explained, leaving the agent without full understanding of the commit process or failure conditions.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds some value (commit mechanism, snapshot guard, payload passthrough). There is no redundant or filler text.

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 destructive, non-idempotent operation involving a two-phase commit, the description is too terse. It fails to explain what the two phases are, what the snapshot guard protects against, and what the confirmation_token is for. While an output schema exists, the process semantics are critical and remain underdescribed.

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 description coverage is 67%, covering payload and account_id but not confirmation_token. The description adds meaning to payload by stating it is passed through as-is, which is helpful. But it does not clarify confirmation_token's role in the two-phase commit, leaving a gap in parameter understanding.

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 'Create an account invitation,' which is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from update, delete, list, and manage invitation tools. The action is unambiguous even though the two-phase commit mention adds technical detail.

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 implies when to use this tool (when creating an account invitation) but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. It does not reference sibling tools like manage_account_invitation_b2b or update_account_invitation, so the usage context is clear but not fully guided.

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