infomaniak_manage_public_cloud_kubernetes_service

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

The description adds the 'two-phase confirmation' detail, which is not present in the annotations, indicating that mutations require an extra confirmation step. However, it does not explain how the confirmation works or what precisely gets destroyed (though destructiveHint is already set). It provides some value beyond annotations but is not rich.

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 states the purpose and a key behavioral trait without any filler. 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?

The tool has 6 parameters, including a free-form payload and action-dependent semantics (create vs update/delete). The description does not explain which parameters are required for each action, how to obtain needed IDs, or what the two-phase confirmation entails. Even with an output schema, an agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter understanding. It only hints at the action parameter (create/update/delete) and the confirmation token via 'two-phase confirmation', but gives no guidance on the payload structure, kaas_id usage, or the roles of project_id/public_cloud_id. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool with a free-form payload.

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 uses specific verbs (Create, update, or delete) and names the exact resource (Public Cloud Kubernetes service). It also highlights a distinctive feature (two-phase confirmation) and clearly differentiates this mutation tool from the list/get sibling 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?

The action verbs imply when to use the tool (when creating, updating, or deleting), but there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or reference to alternatives like the get/list tools. The usage context is clear but implied rather than stated.

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