infomaniak_update_mailbox_folders

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, non-read-only, and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context by mentioning a two-phase commit and a mailbox security state guard, which are not conveyed by the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations, and it helps the agent anticipate a multi-step confirmation process.

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 two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then adding a critical behavioral note about the two-phase commit. No wasted words; every clause adds value.

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?

Given the 10-parameter schema, annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the core operation and highlights the two-phase commit, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use the tool and does not describe the output beyond what the schema likely covers. Still, it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 input schema has high description coverage (90%), so the baseline is 3. The description lists the folder types but does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explicitly explain the confirmation_token, though 'two-phase commit' indirectly references it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and identifies the exact resource ('mailbox folder mappings') and enumerates the folder types (archives, drafts, sent, trash, spam, commercials, social-networks), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like mailbox filters or security configuration. The mention of 'Two-phase commit' further clarifies the operation's nature.

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 modifying folder mappings by listing the affected folder types, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The 'two-phase commit' and 'security state guard' hint at a confirmation step, providing some context for sensitive operations, but no explicit exclusions are given.

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