infomaniak_harden_mailbox_security

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context with 'Two-phase commit with audit/current-state guard', explaining that the tool checks current state and likely uses a confirmation step. This goes beyond the raw annotations, though it stops short of fully detailing the audit guard's behavior.

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: the first quickly lists concrete actions, the second adds the critical two-phase commit behavior. No filler or redundant repetition of schema/annotation info.

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 communicates purpose and key behavioral traits, but doesn't explain how the two-phase commit interacts with the confirmation_token parameter, leaving ambiguity about whether changes auto-apply or require explicit confirmation. Given 7 parameters and an output schema, this is a notable gap.

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 86%, so most parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'optionally set filtering folders' maps to the folder parameters but adds no new semantic nuance beyond what the schema already states.

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 identifies the tool's action: 'Plan and apply conservative mailbox security hardening' with specific sub-actions (enable spam movement, enable mail filtering, optionally set filtering folders). This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like infomaniak_get_mailbox_security and single-purpose setters like infomaniak_set_mailbox_spam_policy.

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 for security hardening scenarios but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like infomaniak_set_mailbox_spam_policy or infomaniak_update_mailbox_folders. It gives a context ('conservative hardening') but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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