infomaniak_manage_public_cloud_project

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

The description adds 'two-phase confirmation' behavior beyond annotations, which is crucial for understanding that actions require a confirmation token. Annotations already mark destructive/mutating, so the extra context about confirmation is valuable and not redundant.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the main actions and includes a key behavioral caveat. No wasted words.

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 CRUD tool with nested payload and confirmation flow, the description is too minimal. It omits when confirmation is required, what payload should contain, and how actions differ, making it insufficient for correct invocation despite the output schema.

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 no parameter details. It does not explain the roles of public_cloud_id, project_id, payload, or confirmation_token, leaving agents to infer semantics purely from the schema.

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 tool's function with specific verbs (create, update, delete, invite) and the resource (Public Cloud project). It distinguishes from sibling list/get/manage tools by enumerating the actions, and the 'two-phase confirmation' detail adds unique 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_public_cloud_projects or get_public_cloud_project. The description implies modification tasks but does not state exclusions or recommend alternatives for read-only operations.

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