infomaniak_remove_drive_share_link

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful context about 'two-phase commit' and 'current share-link guard', which are not present in annotations and help set expectations about safety and confirmation requirements.

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 a single, information-dense sentence covering the action, endpoint, destructive nature, and the guard mechanism. No wasted words.

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?

For a destructive operation with an output schema, the description covers key aspects: what is removed, the endpoint, the two-phase commit, and a safety guard. It does not explain when confirmation_token is required or what the output looks like, but the output schema handles the latter. Slightly incomplete due to token ambiguity.

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 covers drive_id and file_id with descriptions. The description mentions 'two-phase commit', which relates to confirmation_token but does not explicitly explain its purpose or required usage. With 67% coverage, the description could better clarify the optional token's role.

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 states a specific action: 'Remove a kDrive share link' with the HTTP method and path. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create, update, invite, and list by focusing on removal.

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 clearly indicates this is for removing a share link and mentions the destructive nature, implying when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with update/create, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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