Invoke Edge Computing OpenAPI

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior — a hard allowlist of 25 ops and rejection of unknown paths — which tells the agent calls can fail on unmatched paths, but says nothing about auth requirements, side effects, or how requests are dispatched.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with the API surface and immediately followed by the allowlist constraint. No filler or repeated structured data, though the parenthetical API version is restated near-verbatim.

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?

For a destructive, open-world generic invoker with a nested body object, 25% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: the allowlisted operations are never enumerated or pointed to, no auth/permission guidance, and no hint of what a successful response contains.

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 only 25% (only 'path' is documented), so the description needs to compensate and does not. It never explains the meaning of 'method', 'body' or 'query', nor the shape/field expectations of body for the underlying OpenAPI operations.

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?

It names a specific verb+resource ('Full Edge Computing 1.8.1 surface on edge-computing/v1') and scopes it to 25 allowlisted ops, which distinguishes it from sibling pass-throughs like invoke_cdn_api or invoke_storage_api. It stops short of saying what the Edge Computing surface operationally covers, but an agent can tell which API family it targets.

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 'allowlist: 25 ops' plus 'rejects unknown paths — does not invent APIs' implies usage is bounded to known ec-1.0.yaml operations, which partially routes the agent. However it never says when to prefer this generic invoker over the many typed siblings (create_edge_route, list_edge_computes, deploy_edge_compute), so the choice remains inferential.

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