infomaniak_plan_user_offboarding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces and extends this with 'read-only' and 'does not revoke anything.' It also adds scope details ('from app accesses and invitations') and 'initial' (suggesting the plan is a first pass), which are useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, and the second reinforces the non-destructive nature. It is front-loaded, easy to parse, and contains zero filler or redundant wording.

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 that an output schema exists, annotations are present, and the parameter schema fully documents the two simple integer inputs, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly explains what the tool does, what it uses as input, and what it does not do, making it adequate for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (account_id and user_id) with clear integer descriptions. The tool description does not add additional param-level semantics, such as how to obtain these IDs or their relationship, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('a read-only initial offboarding plan for one account user') with a defined input scope ('from app accesses and invitations'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools that actually revoke or cancel access by explicitly noting it does not revoke anything.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when building a read-only initial offboarding plan from accesses and invitations. It also gives an explicit exclusion: 'This does not revoke anything,' which helps the agent avoid using it for actual revocation. However, it does not name specific alternative tools like cancel_user_pending_invitations or delete tools, stopping short of a 5.

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