Invoke IaaS OpenAPI v1 (ecc/v1)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a write-capable, open-world, destructive tool. The description adds the allowlist bound and that unknown paths are rejected, which is useful. It doesn't describe auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens on a partial-batch failure.

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 compact clauses: scope, example, and allowlist constraint. Front-loaded and no filler. Slightly dense with metadata (allowlist count) but still efficient.

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 generic catch-all API proxy with 4 params, 25% schema coverage, no output schema, and destructive semantics, the description covers the essential what and the path constraint but omits auth, body/query semantics, and how this relates to the more specific IaaS siblings.

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 25% and the description only elaborates on 'path' (concrete vs template, example given). 'method', 'query', and 'body' are not given any semantic guidance. Some value is added over the bare schema, but the description does not compensate for the 75% coverage gap.

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 names a concrete verb and resource ('Call napi.../ecc/v1 paths from iaas-1.0.json'), lists the covered domains (servers, networks, float-ips, databases) and identifies the exact OpenAPI spec and allowlist size (136 ops). It clearly distinguishes itself from other generic 'invoke_*_api' siblings by naming the Iaas IaaS v1 surface.

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?

It tells the agent to use concrete paths (with example), and that unknown paths are rejected. It does not explicitly say when to pick this tool over the more specific siblings (e.g., list_servers, create_server) or invoke_iaas_v3_api, which would be the key routing decision.

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