Invoke VOD 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/scope risk is covered structurally. The description usefully adds that the surface is bounded to 54 allowlisted ops and that unknown paths error rather than being invented. It still omits auth requirements, the fact that DELETE/PUT are reachable through it, and any rate-limit or side-effect detail beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded with the scope and then the constraint, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a passthrough, though the second sentence could carry a routing hint at no cost.

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 OpenAPI invoker with an untyped body, no output schema, and 25% parameter coverage, the description is thin on how to discover valid paths and payload shapes. The allowlist bound is helpful, but an agent still lacks enough to invoke it confidently versus the dedicated VOD tools.

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, while 'body' has an empty schema and 'query' is a loosely-typed object, and the description explains none of the four parameters. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate with method/path/body conventions, and it does not.

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 specific action (invoking the Arvan VOD 2.0 OpenAPI surface) and scopes it to an allowlist of 54 ops from vod-2.0.json. That is clearly distinct from the many dedicated siblings (list_vod_videos, get_vod_channel, create_vod_channel), but it never explicitly says it is the generic escape hatch for operations those tools don't cover, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance at all. With ~15 dedicated VOD siblings in the list, the definition should state whether to prefer them and reach for this only when no dedicated tool exists; instead it only says unknown paths are rejected, which is a constraint, not a routing rule.

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