lom_call

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return behavior ("Returns the result, with a path for any object returned"), but says nothing about the destructive potential or that method names must be valid Live Object Model methods.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by one tight example and a return-value note. No filler sentences; every line earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does provide a minimal return contract (result plus path for returned objects). For a generic object-method dispatcher with a 0%-coverage schema, more would help – e.g. how `path` strings are formed or what happens on an invalid method – but the essentials to make a call are present.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must carry the load, and it does: it explains that `path` refers to an object, that `args` are positional, and the example demonstrates all three parameters including an empty-arg and negative-number case. `method` is only shown by example rather than defined, hence not a 5.

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 (call) and resource (a function of the object at `path`), and the example disambiguates the argument order concretely. However it does not distinguish itself from the close siblings lom_get and lom_describe, which an agent would need to pick between.

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?

Usage is implied by the worked example (lom_call("live_set", "create_scene", [-1])), so an agent can infer the calling convention. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to lom_get/lom_describe, nor any note that this is the mutation-capable path of the trio.

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