infomaniak_manage_domain_nameservers

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds valuable context by mentioning 'two-phase confirmation with a current domain snapshot,' which informs the agent about the confirmation workflow and safety mechanism, going beyond the structured annotations.

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, focused sentence that conveys the core functionality and a key behavioral detail without any redundant wording. It earns its place with high information density.

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 complexity of a five-parameter destructive tool, the description is somewhat thin. It mentions two-phase confirmation but does not explain when confirmation is required or how the snapshot feeds into the workflow. However, the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the description provides a reasonable starting point.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond the operation itself. It does not clarify the roles of 'confirmation_token,' 'verify_ns_availability,' or the relationship between 'nameservers' and 'use_infomaniak_ns,' leaving the agent to infer semantics solely from parameter names.

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 action and resource: updating a domain's nameservers or restoring Infomaniak nameservers. This distinguishes it from sibling DNS record management tools, which target individual records rather than the nameserver level.

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 nameserver-level changes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like DNS record tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so the guidance is mostly implicit.

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