Invoke Object Storage management OpenAPI

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/open-world profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations do not: a bounded 58-operation allowlist and explicit rejection of unknown paths, which tells the agent it cannot fabricate endpoints.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: identity, path convention, allowlist scope, and rejection behavior in roughly three clauses. The path-rewriting sentence is slightly cryptic but earns its place given how easy it would be to double-prefix /v1.

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 an open-world, destructive passthrough with no output schema, the description covers the allowlist and path mechanics but omits auth expectations, error behavior, and — most importantly — the relationship to the dedicated storage tools it overlaps with. Adequate but leaves a real selection gap.

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 25%; path and method are documented (path has a description, method an enum) but body and query are bare objects. The description compensates partially by explaining the /v1 base/path relationship, easing the most error-prone parameter, but says nothing about body or query shape.

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 verb (Call) and resource (storage.arvanapis.ir management API, OpenAPI storage/1.0.0), and the allowlist of 58 ops frames its scope as a passthrough. It separates itself from the other invoke_*_api siblings by naming the storage domain, but it never distinguishes itself from the dedicated object-storage tools (list_buckets, create_bucket, put_object_text) that sit alongside it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this generic dispatcher versus the many purpose-built storage tools (list_buckets, head_object, delete_bucket) or the other invoke_*_api tools. The only usage-like note is the mechanical /v1 stripping rule, which is about path formatting, not tool selection.

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