invoke_tool

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

The description discloses that the tool can perform both read and write operations and recommends reviewing target tool annotations, adding nuance beyond the binary destructiveHint annotation. The safety guidance is actionable and does not contradict annotations.

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 sentences clearly state the core purpose and safety considerations without wasted words. The description is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 essential aspects: what the tool does, how to invoke it safely, and parameter usage is handled by the schema. Since an output schema exists, omitting return-value details is acceptable.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both toolName and arguments thoroughly. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond using the phrase 'exact name', but with full schema coverage this is acceptable.

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 the tool invokes a proxy-visible Huly tool by exact name with arguments, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_tool_schema or search_tools, making its purpose 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 mentions the tool can call read or write operations and advises checking get_tool_schema and target annotations when safety matters. This provides useful context for when to use it, though it could more explicitly contrast with alternative tools.

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