infomaniak_manage_kchat_channel

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

Annotations already indicate destructive/non-readonly behavior, and the description adds a valuable, non-obvious behavioral trait: 'Two-phase confirmation for all writes.' This reveals that writes require a confirmation step, providing context beyond the flags. No contradiction with annotations; destructiveHint=true aligns with the described write operations.

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?

Two sentences, both dense with information: the first lists the full action scope, the second reveals a critical behavioral aspect. No filler or redundancy; it is front-loaded with the primary verb list, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 tool is complex (5 parameters, nested payload, many actions), and while an output schema exists, the description omits crucial details about the two-phase confirmation flow—such as how confirmation_token is obtained or used. It adequately states the tool's scope but leaves the agent to infer per-action parameter requirements, which is a notable gap 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?

The action enum in the schema already lists the same actions the description mentions, so the description adds marginal value for parameter meaning. However, the 'two-phase confirmation' hint clarifies that confirmation_token is relevant for write actions, which is not fully explicit in the schema. The payload/team_id/channel_id relationships are left unexplained, so with 60% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 enumerates a specific resource (kChat channel) with a comprehensive list of verbs (create, update, patch, move, restore, delete, change privacy/scheme/moderation), making it clear this is the channel-level management tool. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like manage_kchat_channel_members and manage_kchat_command by explicitly covering channel operations rather than member or command management.

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 by listing the supported actions, giving the agent a clear sense of when to invoke this tool (e.g., when creating or deleting a channel). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as manage_kchat_channel_members for member operations, so usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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