infomaniak_create_drive_file_access_invitation

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

The description adds 'Two-phase commit with current invitation guard,' which reveals a non-obvious behavioral trait beyond the annotations (which only indicate write/non-idempotent). However, it doesn't explain what the guard does or how the confirmation token is used, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no extraneous words. Every word earns its place—efficient and well-structured.

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 involves a nested payload, an optional confirmation_token, and a two-phase commit flow. The description is too sparse to guide an agent through the full invocation; it doesn't explain how to complete the second phase or what the 'current invitation guard' prevents. With such complexity, more operational context is needed.

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 coverage is 75% (3 of 4 params described). The description's 'two-phase commit' hints at the role of confirmation_token, but it doesn't clarify the payload structure or how to obtain the token. This adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the undocumented token parameter.

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 'Invite a recipient to access a kDrive file or folder' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_drive_file_access_user or create_drive_file_access_team, which handle direct access grants.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., direct user/team access), nor does it mention prerequisites such as existing invitations or the need for a confirmation step. The two-phase commit mention is a hint but not actionable guidance.

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