infomaniak_create_account_team

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

The description discloses a two-phase commit mechanism and a fresh snapshot guard, which are non-obvious behaviors not captured by annotations. It also notes the payload is passed through as-is. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and destructive hints, and the description adds extra operational context.

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 tightly packed sentences: the first states the action, the second adds the critical behavioral nuances. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 create tool with a two-phase commit guard and an optional confirmation token, the description gives a high-level frame but omits how the token is used in the two-phase flow. Since an output schema exists, return value details are unnecessary, but the confirmation_token role is a meaningful gap.

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 description clarifies that the payload is passed through to Infomaniak as-is, adding meaning beyond the schema's generic 'request body' description. However, the confirmation_token parameter remains undocumented in both the schema and description, and with 67% schema coverage, there's room for more parameter guidance.

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 a clear verb+resource statement ('Create an account team'), distinguishing it from sibling update/delete/add/remove operations. It also adds a distinctive detail (two-phase commit) that further characterizes this specific create variant.

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?

Usage context is implied by the 'create' verb and the tool's name, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this versus update/delete/add-user operations. The two-phase commit note hints at a special process, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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