infomaniak_manage_swiss_backup_administrator

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

The description discloses the two-phase confirmation behavior, which is not captured in the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). This adds useful context beyond the structured metadata, though it does not detail the exact workflow or side effects.

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 immediately states the core purpose. There is no unnecessary verbosity or repetition.

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 involves multiple parameters, a nested payload, an output schema, and a two-phase confirmation workflow, yet the description only provides a high-level summary. The confirmation process and payload structure are critical for correct invocation but remain undefined, making the description insufficient for a complex operation.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it only indirectly hints at some parameters: 'create/update' maps to the action enum, 'Swiss Backup subscription' implies swiss_backup_id, and 'two-phase confirmation' implies confirmation_token. The payload object, a required parameter, is completely unaddressed, leaving its structure and content ambiguous.

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 specific action ('Create or update') and resource ('administrator for a Swiss Backup subscription'). It also mentions the two-phase confirmation, which helps differentiate it from related tools like infomaniak_manage_swiss_backup_slot.

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 that this tool is used to create or update an administrator, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide usage context. The two-phase confirmation is mentioned but not explained in terms of when each phase applies.

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