infomaniak_nodejs_app_action

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and readOnlyHint: false, but the description adds essential behavioral detail beyond those flags: the two-phase commit protocol, the downtime implication of stop, and the side effect of build triggering a job with a tailable log_stream. It also notes the manager-private restriction, enriching the agent's understanding of access and consequences.

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 three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core verb+resource, then efficiently adds the high-stakes workflow details. Every sentence contributes critical information—actions, two-phase flow, downtime warning, build/log_stream behavior, and access scope—with no filler 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?

Given the tool's complexity (two-phase commit, multiple actions, destructive stop, build side effects) and the availability of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly: what action to take, the required plan/apply sequence, downtime consequences, and log_stream availability. The action enum in the schema fills in remaining per-action details like 'graceful restart' and 'runs build_command', so the description is complete enough for safe usage.

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 50%, and the description partially compensates by explaining the confirmation_token workflow (first call returns plan + token, second call requires token + same args) and the action's lifecycle meaning. However, the description does not clarify hosting_id or vhost_route_id, leaving those required identifiers dependent on their self-explanatory names rather than any added semantic guidance.

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 opens with 'Start, stop, restart, or build a Node.js application,' a specific action verb plus resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list/get/status. It also names the exact operation set and key behaviors (two-phase commit, log_stream), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear usage context: it explains the two-phase commit flow, warns that stop causes downtime, and notes that build returns a log_stream. It does not explicitly compare against sibling read/status tools, but the action-oriented framing and lifecycle guidance make appropriate use clear.

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