nvr_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 it well: unknown calls are refused with nearest matches, mutating or non-'get' methods require an env flag plus confirm_write, dry-run returns the exact body as data.request with data.dry_run=true and sends nothing, and credential fields are redacted. These are exactly the behaviors an agent must know before calling.

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?

Six dense sentences, front-loaded with the identification triple before the gating and dry-run rules. No filler; each sentence adds an operational fact.

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 high-complexity gateway tool it covers refusal, write gating, extra-key handling, dry-run output shape and redaction, and an output schema exists so return values needn't be described. Minor gaps: no auth prerequisite mention and the ambiguous 'key' parameter.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate and largely does: params is the module body, allow_extra permits keys outside the call's example, and confirm_write is a strict JSON boolean. However, module/method/key formats are only referenced indirectly and the 'key' parameter is never actually explained.

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 ('catalogued gateway to any NVR call') and explains that a call is identified by the (module, method, key) triple sourced from nvr_list_calls/nvr_describe_call. It does not, however, contrast itself with the nearest sibling nvr_raw_call, leaving an agent to guess which gateway to pick.

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 a clear workflow: discover the call via nvr_list_calls/nvr_describe_call, then pass the module body as params. It states the conditions that gate mutating calls (VIGI_NVR_ALLOW_WRITES=true AND confirm_write=true) and when to set allow_extra=true. It never explicitly says when to prefer nvr_raw_call instead.

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