infomaniak_delete_redirection

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

The description adds the critical behavioral trait 'Two-phase commit' beyond what annotations provide. Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent hints, so the bar is lower, but the two-phase process is essential context not present in annotations. This helps the agent understand the tool requires an extra confirmation step.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose ('Delete a mail redirection') and immediately follows with the essential two-phase commit caveat. Every word earns its place; it is concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the rich schema (all parameters explained, output schema present), the description is adequate. It captures the core purpose and the unique two-phase behavior. The schema fills in the remaining details about token handling and discovery steps, making the definition complete enough for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail; it does not mention mail_hosting_id, name, or confirmation_token. The schema descriptions are comprehensive, so the definition remains clear, but the description provides no extra semantic value for parameters.

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 a mail redirection') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like infomaniak_create_redirection or infomaniak_manage_service_redirections by naming the delete operation and adding the 'Two-phase commit' note, which uniquely identifies this tool's behavior.

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 implies usage (when you want to delete a mail redirection) but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or exclude other tools. The schema provides some guidance via parameter descriptions (e.g., 'List existing rules with infomaniak_list_redirections'), but the description itself lacks direct usage direction.

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