infomaniak_manage_public_cloud_project_user

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

The description adds the behavioral detail of 'two-phase confirmation,' which is not present in the annotations. However, it remains vague about the confirmation mechanism and does not elaborate on side effects beyond what destructiveHint already signals.

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 sentence with no redundant words, effectively front-loading the core operations.

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 is complex with 6 parameters including a nested payload and a confirmation flow, yet the description provides only a high-level summary. It does not clarify action-specific requirements, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the purpose of payload, user_id, or confirmation_token. It only repeats the action enum values, leaving most parameters semantically unexplained.

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: to manage Public Cloud project users through create, update, delete, and invite operations, with two-phase confirmation. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_public_cloud_project_users.

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 description implies usage through the listed actions (create/update/delete/invite) but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or provide selection criteria. There's no mention of when to use this vs list_public_cloud_project_users.

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