infomaniak_set_drive_user_manager

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description reveals a two-phase commit workflow and a current-user guard, adding behavioral context not present in annotations. It does not detail the exact commit flow or error cases, but the added traits are valuable.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, then a critical behavioral note. No redundant wording; every phrase adds value.

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 presence of an output schema and sibling tools, the description adequately covers the core purpose and the two-phase commit hint. It could elaborate on how to initiate and complete the two-phase process, but it is sufficient for an agent to likely infer the workflow.

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 3 of 4 parameters; confirmation_token is undocumented. The description's 'Two-phase commit' phrase indirectly clarifies that confirmation_token is for the second phase, adding meaning absent from the schema. This partially compensates for the missing parameter description.

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?

States a specific action ('Set or remove kDrive manager rights') on a specific resource (a kDrive user), and names the exact PATCH endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_drive_user or delete_drive_user.

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?

Mentions 'Two-phase commit with current user guard,' which signals important usage context (likely needing confirmation_token and guarding against self-demotion). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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