infomaniak_create_hosting_user

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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond the annotations, including the two-phase commit process, the distinction between SFTP-only and full shell access, and the password policy. These details are not exposed by the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations and are valuable for an agent to understand the tool's non-obvious behavior.

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, with three sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately provide essential distinctions (connection types, two-phase commit). Every sentence contributes functional information, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tells the agent the essential facts: what it does, the two-phase commit, and connection type meanings. The schema covers parameter details and the output schema exists, so return values are not required. It doesn't elaborate on permissions or failure modes, but for a create operation with rich schema support, this is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema covers all 6 parameters with detailed descriptions (login prefix rule, password regex, hosting_id discovery, home_directory default, connection_type enum, confirmation_token purpose). The description text adds no significant parameter information beyond the schema, so it rests at the baseline for 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 action 'Create a new FTP / SSH user on a web hosting', identifying the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like infomaniak_list_hosting_users and infomaniak_delete_hosting_user by focusing on creation. The mention of two-phase commit further clarifies the tool's unique scope.

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 by specifying connection types and password policy, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_hosting_users or delete_hosting_user. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so the usage guidance is only implicit rather than explicit.

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