infomaniak_manage_kchat_channel_members

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

The description discloses a crucial behavioral trait: 'Two-phase confirmation for every mutation.' This goes beyond the annotations (which only mark destructiveHint) and warns the agent of a confirmation step. However, it does not explain how the confirmation workflow operates, so it is not a 5.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core operations and a critical behavioral caveat. No redundant wording.

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 has 9 parameters and multiple action types, yet the description does not specify per-action required fields or the payload structure. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, and the schema descriptions help, but the input semantics could be clearer for an agent.

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?

With schema description coverage at 78%, the schema handles most parameter documentation. The description groups roles, scheme roles, and notify props conceptually but does not map specific parameters to actions or clarify the two-phase token requirement.

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 explicitly states the tool's actions: add, remove, update roles, update scheme roles, and update notify props. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like infomaniak_list_kchat_channel_members.

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 use: all mutations of channel members. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list tool and the action list make the intended usage obvious.

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