infomaniak_create_mailbox_alias

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and destructive behavior. The description adds the 'Two-phase commit' detail, which is a notable behavioral trait beyond the annotations. However, it does not explain what the two phases are or that a confirmation_token is required, leaving important process behavior undisclosed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every word earns its place. The phrase 'Two-phase commit' is terse but conveys a critical constraint without unnecessary detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the two-phase commit process is underspecified: the description does not tell the agent that a confirmation token is needed or how the phases work. For a tool with a non-simple workflow, this is a notable gap in completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly clarifies alias and mailbox (via 'Add a new alias to an existing mailbox'), and mail_hosting_id is implied as an identifier, but the confirmation_token parameter—critical for the two-phase commit—is completely omitted. This leaves a key parameter 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 the action (Add), the object (a new alias), and the target (an existing mailbox). It also explains the functional effect ('The alias will receive emails delivered to the underlying mailbox'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_mailbox_aliases.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: adding a new alias to an existing mailbox. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., when to use manage_mailbox_aliases instead), so it lacks full if-then guidance.

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