infomaniak_delete_drive_activity_report

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds a 'current-state guard' suggesting deletion is conditional on the report's state, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on failure behavior, needed authorizations, or the role of confirmation_token, so transparency remains partial.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words, making it easy to scan and parse.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description leaves important operational details unexplained: the meaning of the 'current-state guard', when deletion is allowed, and how the optional confirmation_token is used. The low parameter coverage amplifies this gap, so the tool is not fully contextualized.

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 only 33%, with report_id and confirmation_token lacking descriptions. The description does not define these parameters; it only refers to the report generally and mentions a guard that might relate to confirmation_token but without specifics. Thus it fails to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'generated kDrive activity report', clearly distinguishing it from sibling report tools (create/get/list/export). The phrase 'with a current-state guard' adds a clarifying condition without obscuring the primary action.

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, and does not mention exclusions. The term 'generated' implies a precondition but does not explain when deletion is appropriate or when to choose other report operations. Thus usage is only vaguely implied.

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