infomaniak_create_drive_file_access_team

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'Two-phase commit with current file-access guard,' which discloses that the operation involves a confirmation step and has safeguards. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation fields.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and no redundant or filler content. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the two-phase commit behavior is a significant operational detail left underspecified. An agent cannot fully understand the call flow (e.g., whether a token is returned, how to finalize) from the description alone. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with this 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 80%, so baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'two-phase commit' hints at the purpose of confirmation_token (which has no schema description), but it doesn't explicitly explain the payload structure or how the token is used. It adds marginal value 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 a specific action ('Grant a team access') on a specific resource ('kDrive file or folder'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_drive_file_access_user or remove_drive_file_access_team. The verb and object are unambiguous.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The two-phase commit hint implies a process but doesn't explain when to prefer this over update_drive_file_access_team or user-specific access tools. Context is minimal and inferred from the name.

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