infomaniak_manage_mailbox_aliases

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the two-phase confirmation and refetch-before-apply flow for write operations. This helps the agent anticipate the need for a confirmation token and understand the tool's internal safety mechanism, complementing the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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 concise at just two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the operational caveat stated without fluff. 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?

For a tool with 7 parameters and 4 actions, the description leaves out action-specific parameter requirements (e.g., 'replace' needs 'aliases', 'add/delete' need 'alias') and does not explain when the confirmation_token is required or how to obtain it. The existence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but the operational flow remains partially underspecified.

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 71%, with most parameters already described. The description adds meaning to the undocumented 'confirmation_token' by explaining the two-phase confirmation, which clarifies its purpose. It also hints why 'aliases' is used for replace operations, though it does not explicitly map parameters to actions.

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 resource (mailbox aliases) and the specific operations (list, replace, add, delete), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like infomaniak_create_mailbox_alias and infomaniak_delete_mailbox_alias by covering the broader 'manage' scope.

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 implies usage through the 'action' enum and mentions the two-phase confirmation, but it does not explicitly tell the agent when to choose this consolidated tool over the dedicated create/delete sibling tools, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. It relies on the agent to infer that the action parameter determines usage.

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