infomaniak_manage_newsletter_admin

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, readOnly=false, idempotent=false; the description adds valuable behavior beyond this by stating 'Uses two-phase confirmation and rechecks the current list before apply,' which warns the agent that operations may need a confirmation_token and may fail or change after rechecking. No contradiction with annotations; it reinforces the destructive/mutating nature.

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?

Two short sentences; the first is a dense front-loaded action list, the second adds a critical operational caveat. Every phrase earns its place with no filler.

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?

This tool exposes 13 actions (including ambiguous delete_subscriber vs forget_subscriber vs unsubscribe_subscribers) and 6 params, yet the description gives no guidance on action selection, required payloads, or confirmation flow specifics beyond the single caveat. The output schema exists, so return values may be covered elsewhere, but the operational ambiguity makes the description insufficient for safe use of a destructive multi-action tool.

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 33% (domain and payload are described in the schema, but group, subscriber, action, and confirmation_token are not). The description mentions groups/subscribers and two-phase confirmation indirectly, but does not explain identifier formats, payload semantics, or how the action enum maps to specific params, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb list ('Create, update, delete, assign, unassign, or forget') tied to concrete resources ('newsletter groups and subscribers'), clearly identifying the tool as the management counterpart to the read-only get_newsletter_admin sibling. The scope is unambiguous and distinguishes it from other Infomaniak manage tools.

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/when-not guidance or alternative tools are named; the description implies usage by listing mutating operations, and the 'two-phase confirmation' clue suggests a workflow but not when to choose it over get_newsletter_admin or how to choose among the many action values. This is only implied usage, not stated guidance.

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