infomaniak_manage_service_redirections

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior, and the description adds little beyond listing operations. It does not explain side effects, token requirements for confirmation actions, whether operations are reversible, or any rate limits or permissions. The description does not contradict annotations, but it fails to disclose behavioral details beyond what the annotations already signal.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the primary operations. It avoids unnecessary filler, though the second sentence ('Also exposes...') somewhat restates content already implied by the action enum and adds little unique value. Still, it is appropriately short for a tool list.

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 tool with 7 parameters, 10 enum actions, nested objects, and destructive annotations, this description is far too thin. It does not map actions to required parameters, explain the meaning of 'service-level' in relation to sibling tools, or clarify when confirmation resend helpers should be used. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the operational and relational context remains incomplete.

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 43%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining parameters like redirection_id, target_id, confirmation_token, and payload. It does not. The only parameter meaning added is the vague phrase 'target-list and confirmation resend helpers,' which does not clarify which parameters apply to which actions or how they interrelate.

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 enumerates the tool's operations ('List, create, update, delete, enable, and confirm service-level redirections') and identifies the resource as service-level redirections. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like infomaniak_list_redirections or infomaniak_create_redirection, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this composite tool over the individual ones.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus the sibling redirection tools, nor does it mention prerequisites, intended workflows, or exclusions. The action enum hints at possible operations, but the description itself offers no contextual direction.

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