infomaniak_create_redirection

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds the 'Two-phase commit' detail and the fan-out forwarding behavior, which are useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, prerequisites beyond the schema, or what happens during the apply phase. It adds some context but not rich behavioral transparency.

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-loads the primary purpose, and includes only essential information. It is concise and well-structured with no filler.

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 two-phase commit workflow is a significant behavioral complexity, but the description only mentions it in passing. It doesn't explain the phases, how to obtain the confirmation token, or the expected invocation sequence. While the schema documents the token, the description itself is incomplete for guiding an agent through a multi-step operation. The tool is also one of many redirection-related tools, and the description doesn't situate it within that context.

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 100%, and each parameter has a detailed description (e.g., name pattern, targets format, mail_hosting_id discovery, confirmation_token purpose). The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a server-side mail redirection.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing. It also explains the forwarding behavior ('Emails received at name@<domain> will be forwarded to every address in targets'), which adds clarity and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list or delete redirections.

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. It mentions 'Two-phase commit' as a process hint, but doesn't explain when to use it (e.g., for creating redirections) or when another tool like infomaniak_manage_service_redirections would be more appropriate. There are no clear usage or exclusions.

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