infomaniak_update_drive_file_access_team

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing a 'two-phase commit with current file-access guard', which alerts agents to confirmation requirements and concurrent-modification safety. This is meaningful extra information without contradicting the 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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. The clause about two-phase commit adds meaningful technical detail without unnecessary verbosity. Every phrase 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?

With an output schema present and strong annotations, the description doesn't need to explain return values or safety profile. It does highlight a critical workflow aspect (two-phase commit) that is essential for correct invocation. It could mention the need for confirmation_token explicitly, but the hint is adequate given the output schema covers responses.

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 description coverage is high (80%) and the schema provides clear descriptions for drive_id, file_id, and team_id. The description does not enrich payload semantics beyond calling it 'Access payload accepted by Infomaniak's file access teams endpoints', which is slightly vague. The 80% coverage keeps this at baseline, with no notable additional value from the description.

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 verb ('Update'), the resource ('a team's access role'), and the target ('kDrive file or folder'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create or remove access. The additional 'Two-phase commit' phrase adds specificity without obscuring the core purpose.

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 implies use for modifying existing team access, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over create_drive_file_access_team or update_drive_file_access_user. It provides a mechanism hint (two-phase commit) but no clear alternatives or exclusions, leaving usage context to be inferred.

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