infomaniak_remove_drive_file_access_team

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes beyond by revealing 'two-phase commit' and 'current file-access guard,' which explains the process has a safety mechanism. It doesn't fully describe the consequences or the confirmation_token flow, but it adds meaningful context beyond the structured 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?

Two short sentences, 17 words, front-loaded with the primary action. Every phrase earns its place: action, resource, destructive warning, and safety guard. No filler.

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 description is adequate but leaves gaps: the 'current file-access guard' and 'two-phase commit' are mentioned but not explained, and the optional confirmation_token parameter is undocumented. With output schema present and annotations covering destructive safety, the description doesn't need to list return values, but more detail on the commit flow would improve completeness.

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 descriptions cover 75% of parameters (drive_id, file_id, team_id), so baseline is 3. The tool description does not explain parameters further; notably, confirmation_token is optional, has no schema description, and its role in the two-phase commit is only implicitly referenced. This leaves a minor gap, but not enough to lower below baseline.

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 the specific action 'Revoke a team's access to a kDrive file or folder,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/update_drive_file_access_team and remove_drive_file_access_user. The 'Destructive two-phase commit' phrase adds operational context without ambiguity.

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 tool's purpose directly implies when to use it: when a team's access to a kDrive file/folder must be removed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'Revoke' verb and destructive warning provide clear context. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so not a 5.

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