vcf_call

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

It goes far beyond annotations by noting authentication is handled, mutating operations change the estate and some are irreversible, every mutation is audit-logged, and long-running calls return HTTP 202 + task id. This is exactly the type of behavioral context raw API callers need.

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?

The description is structured as a summary line, safety/async warnings, then a concise Args list. Each sentence adds unique value, and the high-risk nature of the tool justifies the length.

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?

The description covers dangerous side effects, auth, async task handling, path construction, and response-size truncation. However, it does not describe the general response envelope (status/body) or error behavior beyond 202, leaving some ambiguity for a raw API caller without an output schema.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the role of each of the 7 parameters, including exact path format with examples, query/body types, timeout default, and max_response_chars. Every parameter is given operational meaning.

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 opens with 'Call a VCF API operation,' a specific verb+resource statement, and distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining how target/path come from vcf_targets/vcf_search_api and how vcf_task handles long-running results. It is unambiguous that this is the raw arbitrary API execution tool.

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 explicitly instructs to check vcf_describe_api first when writing, and to follow HTTP 202 responses with vcf_task rather than assuming success. It also situates the tool among siblings by sourcing target from vcf_targets and path from vcf_search_api, giving clear when/how guidance.

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