Call a backend tool

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotent, so the agent knows this is a dangerous, side-effecting, open-world call. The description adds no behavioral context at all -- no warning that it can mutate or destroy state, no error/failure semantics, no auth or rate-limit notes -- leaving the annotations to carry everything.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the workflow contrast, then the argument format. Nothing is wasted and no sentence is redundant with the structured fields.

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 destructive, open-world proxy call with no output schema, the agent still lacks guidance on failure handling, response shape, and the safety implications the annotations flag. The argument-format guidance is present, but the definition is thin for a tool this consequential.

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 33% (only args is documented), and the description compensates for exactly that gap: args may be an object or a JSON string, and may be omitted for no-argument tools. The required server and tool parameters get no clarification in either place, so it partially offsets the coverage gap but not fully.

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?

"Invoke a tool on a server" gives a specific verb and resource, and it explicitly contrasts itself with list_capabilities ("only finds the name"), so an agent can distinguish the invocation step from the discovery step without opening any schema.

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?

It states the sequencing condition clearly -- this is the step that answers the user, while list_capabilities merely resolves names -- which tells the agent when in the workflow to call it. It does not, however, state exclusions such as when to prefer describe_tool first or retry behavior on failure.

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