infomaniak_update_drive_trash_settings

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a two-phase commit process and a current-settings guard, providing insight into execution semantics and safety behavior not captured by readOnlyHint/destructiveHint. It adds meaningful context about how the operation is validated.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It conveys the main action, endpoint, and a key behavioral nuance, earning every word.

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?

The tool's core two-phase commit workflow is only mentioned cryptically, leaving unclear how to initiate the first phase, obtain a confirmation_token, or what the 'current settings guard' entails. This is a significant gap for a tool with nested settings and a confirmation step, despite annotations and an output schema.

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 settings, but confirmation_token lacks a description. The description's mention of two-phase commit hints at the token's purpose, adding some meaning. However, it does not elaborate on the settings payload structure or how to obtain the 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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('kDrive trash settings') with a precise API endpoint, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that empty trash or manage individual trash items. The two-phase commit mention further clarifies its unique role.

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 usage for updating trash settings via a specific endpoint, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like empty_drive_trash or manage_drive_settings. The two-phase commit hint suggests a workflow, but prerequisites or exclusions are not spelled out.

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