infomaniak_update_drive_file_access_user

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds unique behavioral information about a 'two-phase commit with current file-access guard,' which is not expressed in annotations. This helps the agent understand the operation is not a simple direct update. However, it stops short of explaining what the guard does or how the two-phase flow works.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that front-load the primary purpose and add a key behavioral note. No wasted words, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description omits critical operational detail about the two-phase commit: how a confirmation token is obtained and used, and what the 'current file-access guard' checks. For a mutating tool with this workflow complexity, this is a significant gap that could lead to incorrect invocation. The description gives purpose but not enough to fully operate the 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 description coverage is 80% (4 of 5 parameters documented), so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; the only undocumented parameter (confirmation_token) is only indirectly hinted at by 'two-phase commit.' The description neither remedies nor contradicts the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Update a user's access role') on a specific resource ('kDrive file or folder'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling create/remove/list tools. The two-phase commit note adds extra context 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 action verb 'Update' clearly signals the intended use case (modifying an existing user's access role), providing clear context without explicitly excluding alternatives like create or remove. No when-not-to-use guidance is given, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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