infomaniak_manage_account_invitation_access

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by mentioning 'two-phase confirmation with a fresh invitation snapshot guard,' which hints at safety mechanisms. However, it does not explain what is destroyed or revoked, how the confirmation token works, or other side effects, relying heavily on the destructiveHint annotation.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. The second sentence adds important behavioral context without bloating the text.

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?

This is a complex 8-parameter, multi-action mutation tool with nested payloads and a two-phase confirmation flow, yet the description barely explains request construction. The vague 'snapshot guard' phrase and missing details on confirmation_token and payload leave significant gaps 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 only 25%, and the description does not compensate. It maps high-level action/target enum values but leaves critical parameters like payload, mail_id, drive_id, and confirmation_token unexplained. The agent would struggle to construct valid requests, especially for actions like 'invite' or 'update'.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Grant, update, invite, or revoke') and the resource scope ('invitation-scoped product access for kSuite, drive, mailbox, or kChat'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling invitation-management tools by focusing on product access rather than invitation CRUD itself.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like create_account_invitation, update_account_invitation, or delete_account_invitation. The name implies access management, but the description does not state exclusions or recommend alternatives for different scenarios.

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