manage_custom_operation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that operations are 'stateful' and describes actions, but fails to cover critical aspects like permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error handling, or what the response looks like. For a multi-action tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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?

The description is efficiently structured in a single sentence that lists all actions and their purposes, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with specific actions, making it easy to scan. However, it could be slightly improved by breaking into bullet points for even clearer readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple actions, stateful resources) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and actions but misses details on behavioral traits, return values, and differentiation from siblings. It is adequate as a starting point but requires additional context for effective use.

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 all parameters (action, definition, input, name) with descriptions. The description adds some context by linking actions to parameters (e.g., 'register' requires definition, 'execute' uses input), but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema specifies, such as format details or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles most of the documentation.

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's purpose as managing custom operations on stateful resources, specifying the five available actions (list, get, register, delete, execute). It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (stateful resources), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like manage_state or manage_workspace, which might handle similar resources.

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 provides implied usage by listing the actions and their purposes (e.g., 'register' to create, 'execute' to run with input data), giving some context for when to use each action. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like manage_state or manage_workspace, and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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