infomaniak_manage_mail_device_access

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior, and the description's 'Delete' and 'revoke' align. The added 'Uses two-phase confirmation and current-state guards' provides valuable context beyond annotations, informing the agent that a confirmation token is required and that operations may fail if state changed.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the primary action and adding a key behavioral note. No redundant or filler text; every sentence 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?

Given 7 parameters, a destructive annotation, and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete at a high level but lacks operational details such as the two-phase confirmation flow, parameter dependencies for each action, and error conditions. The output schema likely covers return values, but the description doesn't fully guide an agent through the tool's use.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source for parameter semantics. It explains the two action modes and the mailbox/service scope, but does not clarify when `user_id` vs `mailbox_name` is required or the format/meaning of `device_access`. Thus it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete', 'revoke') and a clear resource ('device access', 'device sessions'). It distinguishes two operation modes, making its purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from the sibling read tool `get_mail_device_access`.

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 clearly implies destructive management of device access, and the 'two-phase confirmation' note adds usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as pointing to `get_mail_device_access` for read-only viewing.

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