infomaniak_manage_account_invitation_b2b

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and readOnlyHint=false, so the description needn't restate them. It adds 'Two-phase confirmation with a fresh partnership snapshot,' which reveals a non-obvious workflow. However, it does not explain what the two phases entail, whether a confirmation token is required, or what happens upon unassignment, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loading the primary action and adding one relevant process note. No redundant information or filler is present.

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?

With 6 parameters, a two-phase workflow, and an output schema, the description is too terse. It hints at the confirmation process but doesn't specify the mechanics, payload usage, or the meaning of 'fresh partnership snapshot.' The annotations and output schema cover some aspects, but the tool's complexity demands more explanatory detail than provided.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It mentions 'B2B customer partnerships' (implying partnership_id) and 'action' is clear from the enum, but account_id, invitation_id, payload, and confirmation_token are unexplained. There is no guidance on constructing the payload or when confirmation_token is needed.

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 function: 'Assign or unassign B2B customer partnerships on an account invitation.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling invitation management tools like manage_account_invitation_access or create_account_invitation. The added detail about two-phase confirmation further clarifies the intended operation.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (managing B2B partnerships on an account invitation), and the action enum (assign/unassign) reinforces the scope. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions relative to similar invitation-related tools, so some inference is required.

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