Call a tool that may change things

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat the risk profile. It does add useful behavior beyond the annotations, though: it explains that the call returns the wrapped tool's own result, and that when the arguments do not fit, it returns the problem plus the schema, which is a concrete retry signal. It stops short of saying anything about confirmation, side-effect scope, or partial failure, so it is strong but not complete.

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, with the highest-value routing rule front-loaded in the first clause. Every sentence carries distinct information: what qualifies, where the arguments come from, what comes back, and which alternative to prefer.

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 generic dispatcher with a free-form nested `arguments` object and no output schema, so its description has to carry a lot of meaning; it covers the invocation contract, the source of the argument schema, and the error shape. The only real gap is behavioral detail on destructive side effects and confirmation, which the annotations only partly fill in.

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?

The schema already gives 100% parameter coverage, and the description still adds meaning by saying the arguments object has no fixed shape: it is whatever the discovered tool's schema says, where that schema came from search_tools or describe_tool. It also pins down the `name` semantics as "as search_tools gave it." This adds modest workflow context, but it does not explain what happens with missing or extra arguments beyond an error return.

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 the specific operation with a clear verb and resource: "Call a tool that may create, change or delete something", and it qualifies the scope using a concrete signal ("not readOnly in search_tools results"). It also names the sibling it is not intended for ("Prefer call_read_tool"), so an agent can choose between them without opening a 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 explicitly routes between alternatives: use this for non-readOnly tools, and "Prefer call_read_tool for tools that only read." It also states a prerequisite workflow: arguments must come from the input schema reported by search_tools or describe_tool, which tells the agent what to do before invoking.

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