infomaniak_manage_mail_webmail_access

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

The description discloses two-phase confirmation and refetching of current access state before apply, which are valuable behavioral traits not available in the annotations. This goes beyond the existing readOnlyHint and destructiveHint flags by describing the tool's execution workflow.

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 core purpose and adding one key behavioral note. No filler or redundant information.

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 with 8 parameters, multiple actions, and a two-phase confirmation flow. While annotations and an output schema exist, the description lacks details on the confirmation token workflow and action-specific parameter requirements. It is adequate for high-level understanding but not fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is only 13%, with only the payload parameter having a description. The description mentions action types and two-phase confirmation but does not explain the meaning or relationships of team_id, user_id, mailbox_name, invitation_webmail, or confirmation_token, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names and enums.

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 states the tool's function: create, update, delete, or invite webmail access for mailbox users and teams. It uses specific verbs and a clear resource, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool infomaniak_get_mail_webmail_access by focusing on management operations.

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 purpose statement provides clear context for when to use the tool (any mutation to webmail access), and the mention of two-phase confirmation adds workflow context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as recommending the get tool for read-only access.

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