npm_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: GET executes immediately while POST/PUT require confirm=true after user approval, and DELETE or anything under /api/users or /api/settings requires an exact confirm_phrase. It also discloses that login/token paths are blocked. It omits auth/permission and rate-limit behavior, hence not a 5.

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?

Line-per-parameter layout with the catch-all framing first, then per-method confirmation rules, then blocked paths, then sibling routing. Every sentence carries distinct operational information and none is redundant.

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 five-parameter, unannotated catch-all mutation tool this is complete: an agent knows the method semantics, the path format, how to build the body, exactly when and how to confirm, what is forbidden, and where to look for sibling operations. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary.

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 0% and none of the five properties are typed or documented in the schema, so the description must compensate and does: it defines method's allowed values, path's required prefix and an example, data as the JSON body for POST/PUT, and the exact required format of confirm_phrase with a worked example.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Call any NPM API path directly') and explicitly frames itself as the catch-all, then names the sibling it complements ('Use npm_hosts for normal hosts and streams'). An agent can distinguish it from npm_hosts, npm_status and npm_audit_log 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?

Gives explicit routing: use npm_hosts for hosts and streams, use this for certificates (create, renew), access lists, users, settings, and the audit log. It also states exclusions (login and token paths are blocked), so both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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