invoke

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important runtime behavior: automatic auth URL opening, the need to re-invoke after auth, and the special async.receive return value 'subscribe_requires_subagent'. It also notes that no resources are added yet, setting expectations for usage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides relevant operational details in a compact form. The 'Currently added resources' note is a useful contextual addition, and there is no redundant filler.

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 tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description covers the auth flow and a special return case. It does not explain return values for regular operations, error behavior, or how resource/op_id values are obtained, leaving notable gaps for a generic invoke 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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only names path_params, query, and body without explaining their formats or roles. It adds no meaning for the required resource and op_id parameters, beyond what the schema already shows.

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 clearly states 'Invoke an operation on a resource', which identifies the verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like list_operations or find_resources, but the action is unambiguous.

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 practical guidance on passing path_params, query, and body, and explains the authorization retry flow: 'call invoke again after authorization completes'. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as listing operations first or managing resources.

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