infomaniak_delete_account_invitation

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by mentioning a two-phase commit and snapshot guard, which alerts the agent to potential side effects or prerequisites. The annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior, so the description supplements rather than contradicts them.

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 extremely concise, two short sentences, and front-loads the primary purpose. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 is adequate for a delete operation, especially with an output schema present and annotations covering safety. However, it does not explain the optional confirmation_token or provide context on when a two-phase commit applies, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 schema covers two of three parameters with descriptions, and the description does not explicitly explain the confirmation_token parameter. However, the 'two-phase commit' hint indirectly suggests the token's role, though not clearly. This is a moderate compensation for the 67% 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 ('Delete an account invitation') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create or update invitation. The additional technical detail about two-phase commit does not obscure the core purpose.

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 usage is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cancel_user_pending_invitations or manage_account_invitation_access. No when-not or specific alternative is mentioned.

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