Invoke IaaS OpenAPI v3

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the allowlist boundary and the 'does not invent APIs' rejection behavior. It does not, however, discuss auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive implications of the underlying write operations.

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 sentences with the endpoint and scope front-loaded. There is minor redundancy in naming iaas-3.0.0.yaml twice and mixing doc version v3.0.1 with the yaml name, but no filler.

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 broad proxy spanning 45 operations with no output schema and low parameter coverage, the entry point is described but key operational detail is missing: where the agent finds the allowed paths/operation list, what the call returns, and how write vs read operations differ. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this breadth.

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 coverage is only 40%, so some description-side explanation is needed. It clarifies that the path must match iaas-3.0.0.yaml paths and that region feeds the ecc.{region} host template, which adds meaning to two of the five parameters. Method, body, and query receive no additional semantics.

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?

States a specific action (call paths on the IaaS v3 OpenAPI endpoint) and enumerates covered resources (servers, volumes, firewalls, networks). It is clearly distinguishable from invoke_iaas_v1_api by the v3 version and the ecc.{region} host, though that distinction is implied rather than stated explicitly.

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 limits scope ('Allowlist: 45 ops', 'Rejects unknown paths') but never says when to use this generic proxy versus the many dedicated IaaS tools (list_servers_v3, get_server, create_server, list_networks, etc.) or versus invoke_iaas_v1_api. No when/when-not guidance or preferred alternative is given.

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