infomaniak_unblock_sender

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the two-phase commit behavior, the need for a confirmation token, and the conditional apply ('if the mailbox sender lists have not changed'). This reveals concurrency protection and non-atomicity, which are critical for the agent to invoke correctly. No contradiction with destructiveHint or idempotentHint.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and then efficiently explains the two-phase process. No redundant or filler content.

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 complexity of a two-phase commit, the description clearly outlines the protocol. An output schema exists to document return values, so that is covered. However, it does not explain what happens if the sender lists have changed (failure mode), nor explicitly mention that a blocked sender must exist first. Minor gap for a complex tool.

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 all parameters with meaningful details (e.g., mailbox_name format, confirmation_token format). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Unblock this sender') and identifies the resource (sender lists). It distinguishes from siblings like block_sender and unauthorize_sender by naming the inverse operation directly. The two-phase commit detail reinforces what the tool accomplishes.

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 provides clear procedural context (two-phase commit flow) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as authorize_sender or block_sender. The 'unblock' naming implies usage when a sender is blocked, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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