Invoke Video Ads 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 genuine context beyond that: an allowlist cap and that unknown paths are rejected rather than fabricated. It does not address auth, error semantics, or which HTTP methods map to destructive effects.

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?

Two tight sentences with the allowlist and the no-invention guarantee front-loaded. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the key operational constraint is stated early.

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 arbitrary paths and no output schema, the description is too thin. It never explains how to enumerate the 29 allowed operations, what happens on rejection, or how to pick this over the dedicated VADS tools, leaving major gaps for a high-complexity tool.

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% and the description adds essentially nothing about the four parameters. method, query, and body carry no explanation anywhere, leaving the agent to infer the calling contract from the OpenAPI spec alone. The path parameter's meaning is only defined in the schema, not elaborated by the description.

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 (invoke) and resource (VADS 2.0 OpenAPI surface) and enumerates the covered domains (channels, campaigns, ads, transactions). This differentiates it from sibling invoke_* tools (invoke_vod_api, invoke_live_api) by naming the exact service, though it doesn't distinguish itself from the dedicated get_vads_* / list_vads_* tools.

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?

Provides a hard constraint (allowlist of 29 ops, rejects unknown paths) but gives no guidance on when to use this generic passthrough versus the dedicated typed VADS tools that appear as siblings (list_vads_channels, get_vads_campaign, etc.). No when-not, no prerequisites, no alternative routing.

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