infomaniak_update_drive_user

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations with 'Two-phase commit' and 'current user guard', which are not stated in the annotations. However, these terms are cryptic and not elaborated, leaving uncertainty about what the guard actually does and when a confirmation token is mandatory. No contradiction with 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the action, endpoint, and key behavioral flags. 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?

This is a complex mutation with a nested user object, optional confirmation token, and a guard, yet the description is only one sentence and omits crucial workflow details like when the token is required or what the current user guard protects against. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing behavioral and payload context.

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 already covers drive_id and user_id descriptions, but the description adds meaning to the optional confirmation_token by mentioning two-phase commit, which explains its purpose. The 'current user guard' also implies constraints on user_id. It does not clarify the user object payload structure, but schema coverage is 75% and the endpoint reference provides a pointer.

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 'Update a kDrive user' and gives the exact PUT endpoint, making the action and resource unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling operations like create, delete, lock, and set manager by the verb 'update' and the explicit target.

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 such as infomaniak_set_drive_user_manager or infomaniak_lock_drive_user. The mention of 'two-phase commit' hints at a workflow but does not explain prerequisites, required confirmation tokens, or exclusions.

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