infomaniak_remove_drive_file_access_user

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true. The description adds behavioral context with 'two-phase commit' and 'current file-access guard', signaling that a confirmation step and access check are involved. This adds value beyond the annotation flags.

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 with front-loaded purpose and a useful safety warning. 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 tool is destructive and has a two-phase commit, but the description doesn't connect this to the confirmation_token parameter or explain the guard behavior. With an output schema present, return values are covered, but the critical confirmation flow is under-specified.

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 schema already describes drive_id, file_id, user_id. The description does not explain confirmation_token or how it relates to the two-phase commit. At 75% schema coverage, the description adds no parameter-level detail.

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?

Clearly states the action (revoke), target (user access to kDrive file/folder), and distinguishes from siblings like remove_drive_file_access_team. The phrase 'Destructive two-phase commit' adds a distinguishing safety trait.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives such as remove_drive_file_access_team or update_drive_file_access_user. The 'current file-access guard' hints at a precondition but doesn't state when not to use or direct to sibling tools.

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