infomaniak_unauthorize_sender

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the two-phase commit behavior and the optimistic concurrency condition ('if the mailbox sender lists have not changed'). This is critical for safe invocation, especially given destructiveHint=true. No contradiction with annotations; it complements them substantially.

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 sentence that leads with the core purpose ('Remove this authorized sender') and then efficiently packs the entire two-phase commit mechanism. No filler or redundancy; every clause 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?

The description explains both phases of the operation, the requirement for confirmation_token, and the safety condition on the apply phase. Combined with the existing output schema and thorough parameter descriptions, it fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly across both calls.

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 coverage is 100%: every parameter has a rich description in the schema (e.g., mailbox_name format, mail_hosting_id discovery, confirmation_token necessity). The tool description itself does not add parameter details, but the schema already handles this. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's primary action: 'Remove this authorized sender.' It names the specific resource (authorized sender in mailbox sender lists) and the verb (remove), and the two-phase commit detail distinguishes it from simpler tools like block/unblock. It is much more specific than a generic 'unauthorize'.

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 gives clear context on how to use the tool (two-phase commit sequence) but does not explicitly mention alternatives such as infomaniak_authorize_sender or infomaniak_block_sender. The name and wording imply when to use it, but no exclusions are stated. This qualifies as 'clear context, no exclusions,' so it earns a 4.

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