infomaniak_manage_mail_signatures

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

The description discloses the two-phase confirmation process and refetch-before-apply behavior, which adds context beyond the annotations' destructive hint. However, it doesn't detail confirmation token handling or side effects of deletion, leaving room for more transparency.

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-loaded with action verbs, and contains no redundant information. Every word adds value.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, multiple enums, and a two-phase workflow, the description is too brief. It omits parameter interactions, how to obtain a confirmation token, and prerequisites like mail_hosting_id discovery, making it incomplete for safe and correct usage.

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?

Schema coverage is 56%, and the description adds little beyond the action list. It doesn't explain payload structure, the relationship between scope/resource and other parameters, or the confirmation_token requirement, so it fails to compensate for the incomplete schema 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 clearly enumerates the tool's capabilities (create, update, delete, upload, set defaults, generate) and identifies the resource (mail signatures/templates). It distinguishes itself from read-only siblings like get_mail_signatures by focusing on mutation actions.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given; usage must be inferred from the tool name and action list. It does not mention when to prefer this over other mail management tools, but the implied context is managing signatures and templates.

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