infomaniak_manage_mailbox_auto_reply

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

The description discloses that mutations use a two-phase confirmation, which is a behavioral trait not captured by annotations. Given annotations already indicate destructive potential, this adds useful context about the confirmation token requirement. It does not detail all side effects, but the output schema covers return behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the actions and a key behavioral trait. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it concise and well-structured.

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 multi-action tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the core CRUD-like operations and highlights the confirmation workflow. It does not elaborate on per-action nuances, but the schema and action enum fill in the remaining details, making it reasonably complete.

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 description adds no parameter-level explanation. With schema coverage at 50%, several parameters (action, model_id, confirmation_token, payload) remain undocumented, and the description does not compensate for this gap. The only schema hints are for mail_hosting_id and mailbox_name.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: managing mailbox auto-reply models with list, create, update, delete, and reset actions. It specifies the resource (mailbox auto-reply models) and differentiates itself from sibling tools by covering both reading and mutating 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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and action list, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like infomaniak_list_service_auto_replies. The mention of two-phase confirmation gives some context for mutations but not selection criteria.

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