infomaniak_create_short_url

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

The description discloses the two-phase commit behavior, which is crucial for correct invocation and goes beyond what annotations provide. With destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false already set, the description adds the state-changing nature and the confirmation token requirement. It doesn't mention irreversibility or specific side effects, but the two-phase protocol is substantial added context.

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?

Three short sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, process, and prerequisite. No fluff or repetition of schema fields. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains highly readable.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description covers purpose, process, and precondition adequately. The two-phase commit workflow is hinted but not fully detailed (e.g., how to obtain the confirmation_token), but the schema's token description and output schema likely fill this gap. Complete enough for tool selection and basic invocation.

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 both parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for the 'confirmation_token' by mentioning 'two-phase commit', which clarifies why the token is needed. This goes slightly beyond the schema's note about 'apply phase' and provides workflow context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('short URL') with a clear target ('long target'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like infomaniak_list_short_urls and infomaniak_short_urls_quota by indicating it creates rather than lists or checks quota. The 'Two-phase commit' adds process clarity.

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 explicit guidance to check quota with infomaniak_short_urls_quota when uncertain about headroom, which is a helpful prerequisite. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative create or list tools, but the create purpose is self-evident. Missing an explicit 'when not to use' or alternative comparison.

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