infomaniak_create_drive_activity_report

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, but the description adds valuable context: report generation is asynchronous and requires two-phase confirmation. This goes beyond what the annotations convey and helps the agent anticipate follow-up actions. It does not detail failure modes or the confirmation token flow, but the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

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, starting with the purpose and immediately adding the critical asynchronous confirmation note. Every word earns its place; no repetition of schema details or annotations.

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 tool has 4 parameters, a nested payload, and a two-phase confirmation flow, yet the description only scratches the surface. It does not explain how to complete the confirmation, what the payload fields mean, or how this tool fits with related report tools. This is insufficient for the 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 description coverage is only 25% (only drive_id has a description). The description does not explain the payload object, lang, or confirmation_token parameters. The payload contains multiple fields with no documentation, and the description fails to compensate for this low coverage.

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 the action: 'Create a kDrive activity report.' The verb 'create' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list, get, export, and delete reports. This is a clear statement of the tool's purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_drive_activity_report or export_drive_activity_report. The note about two-phase confirmation explains the process but does not clarify when to invoke the tool in a workflow or any prerequisites.

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