infomaniak_invite_drive_share_link

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows it's a mutating, non-idempotent action. The description adds value by disclosing the 'two-phase commit with current share-link guard,' which is a meaningful behavioral trait not present in the annotations—it indicates the operation involves multiple steps and has stale-link protection.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the primary action, includes the relevant endpoint, and conveys the key two-phase behavior without any wasted words.

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?

For a multi-step mutation with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the important guard. However, it doesn't describe the exact sequence of the two-phase commit, how the confirmation token is obtained, or what happens if the guard fails, so it's not fully complete for an agent that may need to handle those steps.

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 already describes drive_id, file_id, and invitation (75% coverage). The description adds crucial context to the undocumented confirmation_token by implying it is part of the two-phase commit flow, helping the agent understand when and why to provide it. The endpoint in the description also reinforces how drive_id and file_id connect.

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 names the operation ('Invite recipients to a kDrive share link') and specifies the exact REST endpoint, making it unambiguous and distinctly different from sibling share-link tools (create, update, remove). It also introduces the 'two-phase commit' nuance, which further clarifies its specific role.

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?

It provides clear context: this tool invites recipients to an existing kDrive share link. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of X' or list exclusions, the 'current share-link guard' implies it requires an existing share link, and the sibling tool set makes the alternative actions obvious.

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