infomaniak_update_account_team

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: 'Two-phase commit with a fresh team snapshot guard.' This goes beyond the annotations, which already indicate destructive and non-idempotent behavior, by revealing the commit process and concurrency protection. However, it leaves the exact mechanics and implications unexplained.

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 sentences and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the phrase 'fresh team snapshot guard' is jargon that may require elaboration, slightly reducing effectiveness while maintaining brevity.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation requiring a two-phase commit, the description omits crucial operational context: how the confirmation_token fits into the workflow, how the snapshot guard is triggered, and what happens on failure. The output schema may cover return values, but the process is incomplete.

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 description does not reference any parameters. While the schema covers three of four parameters with descriptions, the critical confirmation_token is undocumented in the schema and entirely absent from the description, despite the two-phase commit implying its importance. The description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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: 'Update an account team.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the name 'update_account_team' distinguishes it from create/delete/add/remove team operations among siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like adding/removing team users or updating a tag. The two-phase commit mention hints at a specific workflow but does not explain prerequisites or conditions for use.

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