infomaniak_unlock_drive_user

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

Annotations already mark this as a write operation that is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context with 'Two-phase commit' and 'current user guard', which are not present in annotations. However, 'current user guard' is ambiguous and does not explain error conditions or exact consequences.

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 front-loads the action and endpoint, followed by two compact behavioral hints. It contains no filler and does not repeat schema or annotation information.

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 annotations, an output schema, and well-described core parameters, the tool is mostly complete. The two-phase commit behavior is flagged but not fully elaborated, which is a gap for an agent needing to perform the confirmation step correctly.

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 describes drive_id and user_id well, but confirmation_token has no description, contributing to 67% schema coverage. The 'Two-phase commit' hint hints at the token's purpose but does not explicitly explain when or how to populate confirmation_token.

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 action 'Unlock a kDrive user' and specifies the exact REST endpoint, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'infomaniak_lock_drive_user' by targeting the unlock operation.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention prerequisites/exclusions. The 'Two-phase commit' phrase implies a multi-step workflow but does not explain when the confirmation token is required or how to complete the workflow, leaving usage guidance mostly implied.

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