infomaniak_manage_public_cloud_database_service

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

Annotations already establish destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the valuable behavior of two-phase confirmation, which is not in the annotations, but it does not elaborate on what actions require confirmation, side effects, or idempotency (which the idempotentHint false annotation implies but the description ignores).

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 concise sentence with no waste, which is good, but it is too terse for a tool with six parameters and multiple actions. It earns its place by mentioning two-phase confirmation, yet it omits crucial details, making it more under-specified than appropriately concise.

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 high-complexity tool with six parameters, a nested payload, multiple action types, and a confirmation workflow, this description is severely incomplete. It does not orient the agent on how to construct requests, which actions are destructive, or what the output schema entails. It is minimally viable but inadequate for safe and correct invocation of destructive operations.

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 0%, and the description provides almost no parameter-level guidance. The 'two-phase confirmation' phrase hints at the confirmation_token parameter, but it does not explain the payload structure, required IDs, or when each action enum value should be used. The action enum is self-documenting but the rest of the parameters remain opaque.

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 conveys that this tool manages a Public Cloud DBaaS, but 'lifecycle and operational actions' is vague and does not name the specific actions (create, update, delete, reset_password, toggle_slow_logs) from the schema. It also does not differentiate from sibling read tools like get_public_cloud_database_service beyond the generic verb 'manage'.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling read/list tools, nor when not to use it. The existence of siblings like get/list implies a separation, but the description does not state that this is for mutations only or describe the two-phase confirmation trigger conditions.

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