infomaniak_update_account_invitation

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent), the description adds a meaningful behavioral detail about a two-phase commit and a fresh invitation snapshot guard. This provides concurrency/state context not present in the schema or annotations.

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 only two short sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding a critical behavioral detail. Both sentences are information-dense without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool has an output schema and annotations, the description need not repeat those. However, it leaves the 'two-phase commit' and 'snapshot guard' unexplained, which may confuse an agent. It is minimally complete but lacks clarity on the workflow and prerequisites.

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 75% (3 of 4 params have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only hints at a snapshot guard but does not explain how it relates to parameters like 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 starts with 'Patch an account invitation,' a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create/delete/get invitation. The added 'Two-phase commit with a fresh invitation snapshot guard' further clarifies the operation's nature.

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 verb 'Patch' clearly implies updating an existing invitation, establishing usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over create/delete siblings.

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