infomaniak_manage_swiss_backup_slot

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

The description adds the important behavioral trait of 'two-phase confirmation,' which is not captured in annotations. Annotations already indicate destructive behavior and non-read-only, and the description does not contradict them. However, it does not detail how the two-phase flow works or mention side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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 lists all supported actions and the key confirmation behavior. Every word earns its place, with no wasted content. It is appropriately sized for a tool with a complex schema that the description cannot fully cover.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage, nested objects, and a destructive nature. The description only covers high-level purpose and two-phase confirmation, omitting crucial details about payload structure, when confirmation_token is required, and the role of slot_id. This is insufficient for accurate invocation for all actions.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does not explain payload, slot_id, confirmation_token, or how they relate to each action. The action enum is self-explanatory, but the remaining parameters are opaque, leaving agents without enough guidance for correct invocation.

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 lists the specific actions (create, update, delete, enable, disable) applied to a Swiss Backup slot, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_swiss_backup_slots and get_swiss_backup_slot by focusing on mutation operations.

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 context: use this tool when you need to create, update, delete, enable, or disable a slot. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the verb list and resource make the intended use clear. Sibling names support differentiation.

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