infomaniak_create_drive_user

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

Beyond the annotations (which indicate a non-read, non-destructive operation), the description adds 'Two-phase commit with current user-list guard'. This reveals non-obvious behavior about how the creation is processed and that a guard checks against the current user list, which is valuable for an agent to anticipate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action, the endpoint, and a key behavioral trait.

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 description covers the main action and mentions two-phase commit, but does not explain how the confirmation_token is used or what the 'current user-list guard' does. While output schema and annotations reduce some burden, the two-phase commit flow is a significant gap that should be elaborated.

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 67%, and the description does not clarify the confirmation_token or the user object structure. The 'two-phase commit' phrase hints at the purpose of confirmation_token but never explicitly connects it, leaving important parameter semantics unexplained.

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 'Create a kDrive user through POST /2/drive/{drive_id}/users', combining a specific action verb, the resource type, and the exact endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like infomaniak_create_drive_file_access_user or infomaniak_update_drive_user.

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 implies usage through 'Create a kDrive user', but it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. The 'two-phase commit' hint gives some context but no direct guidance on preconditions or alternatives.

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