infomaniak_manage_kchat_command

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint false), the description adds a key behavioral trait: two-phase confirmation for writes. This is valuable context. However, it does not elaborate on the consequences of delete or token regeneration, though the annotation already flags destructiveness.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the purpose with specific verbs, and the second adds an essential behavioral note. Every word earns its place.

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 output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers the core actions and the confirmation mechanism, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. Minor omissions about side effects of delete/regenerate are partially covered by annotations.

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 schema already describes payload, team_id, and command_id (60% coverage). The description's mention of two-phase confirmation hints at confirmation_token but does not explicitly map parameters to actions. It adds little beyond the schema, and leaves confirmation_token's purpose partially implicit.

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 specifies the actions (create, update, delete, regenerate) on a particular resource (kChat slash command token). It distinguishes this mutation tool from read-only siblings like get_kchat_command and list_kchat_commands.

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 action verbs imply this is for mutations, and the existence of read-only siblings provides context, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when to pick one action over another. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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