infomaniak_create_drive_file_access_user

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the behavioral nuance of a 'two-phase commit with current file-access guard,' which suggests a confirmation step and protection against overwriting existing access. However, these terms are not elaborated, leaving the agent uncertain about the exact guard behavior or how to complete the second phase.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and avoids redundancy with the schema. The second sentence is short but cryptic, which slightly reduces clarity. However, for its brevity, it packs informative hints, earning a 4.

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 nested parameters, the description fails to explain critical aspects: the two-phase commit process, when confirmation_token is needed, how the 'current file-access guard' behaves (e.g., does it reject if user already has access?), or any error conditions. Sibling tools like update_drive_file_access_user exist, but no differentiation or context is provided. The description is too sparse for a complex mutation tool.

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%, with most parameters (drive_id, file_id, user_id, payload) already described. The description adds no new parameter-level insights beyond mentioning 'payload accepted by endpoints' indirectly. The confirmation_token parameter lacks a description in the schema, and the description's 'two-phase commit' reference is too vague to compensate for that gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 verb 'Grant' and the resource 'a user access to a kDrive file or folder.' This is a specific action that distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_drive_file_access_user or remove_drive_file_access_user. The two-phase commit phrase hints at a unique workflow, further separating it from simpler grant tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_drive_file_access_user or create_drive_file_access_invitation. It does not mention prerequisites or exclusion cases. The phrase 'Two-phase commit' implies a specific workflow but does not explain when it applies, leaving the agent without clear decision support.

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