infomaniak_provision_site_full

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint, etc.), the description adds crucial workflow behavior: two-phase commit, plan listing every step, sequential ordered execution on apply, and visibility into partial completion on failure. This adds real context without contradicting the structured hints.

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?

Three tightly-scoped sentences: purpose first, workflow next, execution semantics last. No filler or repetition of schema content; every sentence earns its place.

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 multi-resource complexity and 8 parameters, the description covers the high-level workflow and failure visibility, while the rich schema and output schema carry the remaining burden. It could mention that the first call produces the plan and the confirmation_token comes from that plan response, though the schema already states this.

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 100%, and each parameter already carries detailed semantic documentation (FQDN pattern, zone derivation, TTL bounds, confirmation_token phase). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, matching the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Provision a complete website end-to-end' and explicitly enumerates the three components (web site, MariaDB database, DNS A record). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like infomaniak_create_site or infomaniak_dns_create_record, which handle only one piece.

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 communicates clear context: this is the composite provisioning tool for a full website, and the two-phase plan/apply workflow explains how the agent should drive it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use cases, so it stops 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.