jaicp_call

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that write operations require confirmation, which signals a side-effect gate. However, it does not describe response behavior, error handling, authentication expectations, or the fact that the underlying operations may create, update, or delete data beyond the generic 'writes' label.

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 short sentences, no filler. The core invocation pattern is front-loaded, and the safety-relevant confirmation requirement is stated clearly. Every part of the description earns its place.

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?

This is a dynamic API-call tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is very minimal. It does not mention how to discover valid operationIds using jaicp_operations, what the return value looks like, whether responses are raw, or what happens on invalid specs. The sibling tools help, but the description itself leaves too much unsaid for an agent to invoke the right operation confidently.

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 14%, and the description compensates only for spec, operationId, and confirm. The meaningful parameters body, query, headers, and pathParams receive no semantic guidance, and there is no explanation of how they map to a given operation. The confirm statement also adds less detail than the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action ('Call') and a specific resource ('JAICP OpenAPI operation by spec id + operationId'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling discovery tools jaicp_specs and jaicp_operations. It is immediately obvious what the tool does and how it differs from nearby 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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: once a spec and operationId are known, it executes that operation. It also adds an important condition for write operations ('Writes need confirm=true'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide a when-not-to-use rule, so it stops short of a 5.

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